Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial reasoning

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2025

CHAU TAT WING, suing in his own capacity and as the sole executor of the estate of WONG TIM LUN, deceased v. WONG KWAI WAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2087
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3244/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge lawfully exercised discretion on costs: the plaintiff's claim and the 2nd defendant's counterclaim were intertwined and arose from the same issue (accuracy of the 2012 Survey), the Costs Decision contained adequate reasons, there was no misapprehension of fact or palpable error of principle, and no reasonable prospect of success on any ground advanced by the plaintiff.
8 Jul 2025

SIN CHAN KAM 對 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAI SUN BUILDING

Citation

[2025] HKCA 637
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP24/2025

The Court held that the Land Tribunal has power to punish contempt under s10(1A) and that appeals concerning contempt are governed by HCO s50(1); notwithstanding that s50(1) may render leave unnecessary, the Court granted leave because the respondent demonstrated arguable errors of law: the trial judge either failed to consider the respondent's ability to comply with the mandatory injunction or failed to state clearly that finding, thereby giving the appeal a real prospect of success; costs reserved to the appeal hearing.
30 Sept 2015

香港特別行政區訴馬志強

Citation

香港特別行政區訴馬志強
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA218/2015

The appeal was allowed because the magistrate failed to address a material omission (the absence of any contemporaneous complaint to the police that the appellant claimed triad membership), relied on an unsupported and logically irrelevant geographic inference linking 九江街 to the appellant's church to bolster witness credibility, and gave undue favourable treatment to the second witness (including characterising him as "independent" and making encouraging remarks), such that the convictions were rendered unsafe; accordingly all convictions and sentences were quashed without ordering a retrial.
9 Apr 2010

WINNERS’ WORKSHOP PRODUCTION CO LTD v. OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

WINNERS’ WORKSHOP PRODUCTION CO LTD v. OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2562/2009

The trial judge correctly concluded there was an agreement that the $400,000 balance would not be payable due to complaints and was not required to adjudicate the merits of those complaints; therefore there was no basis for granting leave to appeal.
9 Jan 2004

HKSAR v. LAM HEI KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM HEI KIT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC84/2003

Appellate court concluded that, despite some shortcomings and one factual error in the trial judge's stated reasons, the totality of the evidence (bank transactions, delivery and location of passports, access and admissions) was sufficient to support convictions for money laundering and possession of unlawfully obtained travel documents; the trial judge lawfully rejected exculpatory statements and appellate intervention was unwarranted, so by applying the proviso in s83(1) Cap.221 the appeal was dismissed and convictions and sentences upheld.
21 Mar 2000

HKSAR v. HO TIM PO

Citation

HKSAR v. HO TIM PO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA94/2000

Magistrate lawfully considered and addressed alleged inconsistencies, found the complainant credible with plausible explanation for inconsistencies, properly evaluated appellant's evidence including good character, and was entitled to convict on uncorroborated testimony; the limited disallowance in cross-examination did not render the trial unfair, therefore the appeal against conviction must be dismissed.
3 Feb 2000

HKSAR v. YIU TZE MING

Citation

HKSAR v. YIU TZE MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1007/1999

The magistrate properly treated the quantity as creating a latent risk that some drugs might be used by others, gave credit for the guilty plea, and did not imply she rejected personal consumption; therefore the 18‑month immediate imprisonment sentence was appropriate and the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
20 May 1987

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHUNG CHIU

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHUNG CHIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC132/1987

Conviction quashed because the trial judge failed to address critically important matters (evaluation of defence evidence and the doctrine of recent possession) and relied on erroneous valuation; the evidence was inferential and the proviso could not be applied, so a retrial was ordered.
31 Oct 1985

THE QUEEN v. CHONG KAM-SAU

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHONG KAM-SAU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA859/1985

The conviction was set aside because the magistrate's written findings were inadequate: they failed to demonstrate evaluation of conflicting evidence or explain resolution of inconsistencies, leaving the appellate court unable to assess the correctness of the verdict, particularly where police interest and an independent child witness were relevant.
16 Jan 1975

AU WAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

AU WAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC813/1974

Leave to amend and leave to appeal were refused because the additional grounds lacked substance and the trial judge had properly treated the previous inconsistent statement of the hostile witness as unreliable, had considered the witness's explanations, and there was no demonstrable failure to evaluate or give reasons sufficient to warrant allowing the late amendment or an appeal.