Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial fact-finding

Legal area

Court

3 Sept 2025

CHINA STEM CELLS HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHENG TING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 724
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV90/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions raised were fact‑sensitive and not of great general or public importance; the Court held the trial judge acted within her jurisdiction in determining the Preliminary Issues, was entitled to have regard to related matters and make positive findings based on objective evidence, and did not improperly reverse the persuasive burden of proof.
19 Sept 2024

香港特別行政區訴林智傑

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2476
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA59/2023

On re‑examination of the evidence, including vehicle dashcam footage and road markings, the appellant failed to demonstrate he had ensured the target lane was safe before changing lanes; his conduct fell below the standard of a reasonably prudent driver and constituted careless driving, so the conviction is upheld.
16 Apr 2020

香港特別行政區訴張健華

Citation

[2020] HKCA 242
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC184/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge's acceptance of the complainant's identification and core testimony was reasonable, supported by expert evidence and contemporaneous records, and the applicant failed to identify an arguable error of fact or law that would justify interference.
15 Feb 2018

HKSAR v. SO PING CHI

Citation

[2018] HKCA 76
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC186/2016

Leave to appeal was refused on grounds challenging the judge’s factual findings because those findings were not reasonably arguable or plainly wrong; leave was granted on grounds concerning state of mind, the relevance of motive/mens rea and the defence of reasonable excuse because those issues were reasonably arguable and warranted appellate consideration; leave to appeal sentence was also granted.
1 Dec 2017

香港特別行政區訴祝海龍

Citation

香港特別行政區訴祝海龍
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA503/2016

The magistrate’s factual findings accepting the police officer’s clear, consistent and reliable evidence were not unsafe or unreasonable; the High Court, on rehearing, found no basis to overturn the credibility assessment or the conviction and therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and fine.
29 May 2017

羅對劉

Citation

羅對劉
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC14891/2014

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the husband failed to show a real prospect of success or other compelling reason under s63A(2) Cap.336; alleged errors were either immaterial or already considered and resolved by the trial judge, the proposed fresh evidence did not meet Ladd v Marshall requirements or affect the outcome, and the trial judge's factual and discretionary findings were not plainly wrong.
2 Jul 2014

FI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

FI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV9/2013

Because the IDT issue was a substantive legal point that had to be decided by the Court and could have led to further fact‑finding and eventual success by the Applicants, it was inappropriate to apply the ordinary 'costs follow the event' rule; accordingly the order nisi (that there should be no order as to costs) was made absolute.
16 May 2012

香港特別行政區訴姜文珍

Citation

香港特別行政區訴姜文珍
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA14/2012

The conviction was quashed because the trial judge resolved key contradictory evidence and rejected the appellant's testimony by speculative inferences unsupported by the record, rendering the conviction unsafe.
16 Apr 2008

HKSAR v. CHEUNG SIU LUN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG SIU LUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC405/2007

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge's dispositive finding that the applicant had removed a tattoo was speculative and resulted from impermissible independent research; the prosecution properly conceded the error and the conviction could not be supported.
18 Dec 1999

HKSAR v. YAU YU MING

Citation

HKSAR v. YAU YU MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA437/1999

Appeal allowed because the trial magistrate, while accepting the complainant's account, did not specifically address or make findings on whether the alleged threatening words were mere angry outbursts or made with a genuine intent to alarm; absent such consideration the conviction was not a safe one and must be quashed.