Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Medical evidence

Legal area

Court

8 Apr 2026

LONG MINGZHEN v. MAN CHONG PERSONNEL CONSULTANT LTD

Citation

[2026] HKDC 636
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2779/2023

On the balance of probabilities the applicant did not sustain a workplace injury: the applicant was found not credible due to evasive testimony, multiple material inconsistencies between her evidence and contemporaneous medical and other records (dates, complaint site, mechanism), unexplained delay in seeking treatment, objective findings and expert opinion indicative of symptom exaggeration; therefore the compensation claim was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.
12 Jan 2026

HO KWAI WA 對棉紡會中學法團校董會

Citation

[2026] HKDC 49
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1533/2023

Except for two discrete factual clarifications (questions (4) and (5)), the expert's report did not contain medical ambiguities requiring oral evidence; many of the applicant's queries arose from non-medical issues or misinterpretation of the report and can be resolved by the judge or by a written supplementary report. Given the likely disproportionate costs of oral expert attendance relative to the claim, the application to summon the expert was refused; respondent must instead seek written answers and a supplementary report from the expert within specified time limits. Applicant ordered to…
19 Dec 2025

ZHENG YANQIU 對 NEW WORLD FIRST BUS SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6323
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI128/2021

The court accepted the driver's evidence that he observed the plaintiff seated before departing and found the plaintiff's account inconsistent with contemporaneous statements and medical records; res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable; plaintiff failed to prove the defendant's negligence or causation and the claim is dismissed.
25 Aug 2025

TANG YISU 對 SUNGUARD SECURITY CO LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1412
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1028/2021

Representation by the respondent was validly by the instructing law firm and its chosen counsel; on re‑assessment of the medical evidence the court confirmed the Committee's Form 9 finding of 3% permanent loss of earning capacity; applying s11 monthly wage $9,300, s9 multiplier 48 and 3% yields $13,392; s10 temporary incapacity for 865 days at 4/5 of monthly wage yields $214,520 (extended to 36 months by consent); s10A medical expenses subject to $300 daily cap yield $21,630; two health‑store purchases excluded as non‑medical; after deducting prior payments the respondent owes balance $113,97…
19 Aug 2025

KONG WAI LUN 對 CHEN XIONGJIANG及另二人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1401
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC30/2023

On the totality of the evidence the applicant was a day-rate employee of the first or third respondents (and the second respondent as the main contractor was liable under s.24(1) of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance). The provision or non-provision of specific tools did not preclude employment where fixed daily pay, lack of commercial risk and degree of control over daily tasks established an employment relationship; accordingly statutory compensation was payable as calculated by the court.
13 Aug 2025

CHAN MAN SAU 對風采中學（教育評議會主辦）法團校董會

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1354
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2171/2020

Applying s5(1) and the principles that speech or ordinary administrative acts are not "accidents" unless sudden, unusual and causative of psychiatric injury, the court found only the 29 January 2019 head injury was proven as an accident causing bodily injury; the other alleged incidents were either ordinary workplace interactions, insufficiently sudden/unexpected to be accidents, or lacked contemporaneous evidence/causation, so no liability under the Ordinance except for DCEC 2171/2020 where medical expense of HK$300 was awarded.
1 Aug 2025

QAISAR NAEEM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3240
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1091/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to particularise grounds or disclose material facts, failed to adduce credible evidence, and the Board’s decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; credibility findings and reasoning satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury test and medical complaints did not establish a non‑refoulement risk.
19 Feb 2025

香港特別行政區訴劉智勇

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1016
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA320/2024

On re‑trial the court found the prosecution proved the assault beyond reasonable doubt: the trial judge properly assessed PW1's credibility, discrepancies with the hospital statement were reasonably explained by PW1's state, and CCTV plus medical evidence coherently supported PW1's account; the appellant's recorded interview was inconsistent with objective evidence and rightly rejected, so the conviction and six‑week sentence were upheld.
8 Jan 2025

MD MOHAMMAD RIAZ alias BASHIR AHMED alias CHAUDHRY MUBSHAR AHMED alias RIAZ MUHAMMAD alias AHMAD NABEEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 45
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV163/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show reasonable prospects of success on the intended grounds: a medical examination conducted under the Istanbul Protocol would not likely have produced evidence material to the central factual issue (whether the applicant was or was perceived to be an Ahmadi/convert), the Board had considered existing medical evidence demonstrating fitness to participate in proceedings, and there is no legal obligation to order the further medico-legal examination sought; accordingly the questions posed are not fit for submission to the Court of Fin…
12 Dec 2024

CHAN SAU CHEUNG v. CHI WO CONTRACTORS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2146
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI3003/2020

The judge found the Plaintiff's account was contradicted by contemporaneous accident and medical records and surveillance evidence, that causation and liability were not established and that Plaintiff had already received greater employee's compensation than any liability assessed; accordingly the costs order nisi was properly varied to award party-party costs to 29 December 2023 and indemnity costs thereafter with enhanced interest at 5% above judgment rate, and the Plaintiff's applications for leave to appeal and stay were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.