Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Perjury allegation

Legal area

Court

14 Apr 2026

HUI KAR MAN RICKY 對 WILSON PARKING (HOLDINGS) LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1943
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA42/2025

The High Court refused permission to appeal because the appellant's grounds were not arguable as questions of law: the contested matters were primarily factual credibility and mitigation assessments properly within the Tribunal's remit; there was no evidence of perjury, no binding undertaking limiting liability as alleged, and the adjudicator acted within lawful inquisitorial powers, so no legal error meriting leave was shown.
20 Mar 2024

LEUNG KAM CHUNG KENNETH v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 842
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1936/2021

Application for extension of time and leave to appeal dismissed because the Plaintiff was substantially and inexcusably out of time, failed to explain delay, and the intended grounds of appeal lacked a real prospect of success (requests were in substance evidence/submission or cross‑examination and perjury issues are for trial); prejudice to Defendant and costs awarded to Defendant.
4 Dec 2015

CHOY BING WING v. PRESIDENT OF HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS (HKIE)

Citation

CHOY BING WING v. PRESIDENT OF HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS (HKIE)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1097/2013

The court refused leave to appeal because the proposed appeals had no reasonable prospect of success; the allegations of perjury and concealment were unproven and, even if proved, would not affect the charging orders absolute; the applications were dismissed and the defendant was entitled to indemnity costs assessed in gross at HK$16,000 per application (total HK$32,000).
4 Dec 2015

CHOY BING WING v. PRESIDENT OF HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS (HKIE)

Citation

CHOY BING WING v. PRESIDENT OF HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS (HKIE)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1994/2012

The court refused leave to appeal because the proposed appeals had no reasonable prospect of success; there was no proper basis shown for allegations of perjury and, even if proved, those allegations would not affect the charging orders made by the Masters; costs were awarded to the defendant on an indemnity basis.
28 Mar 2013

CHOY BING WING v. PRESIDENT OF HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS (HKIE)

Citation

CHOY BING WING v. PRESIDENT OF HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS (HKIE)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1994/2012

The appeal and application failed because the Plaintiff did not prove that the Defendant's affirmation was false or that perjury had been committed; the affirmation was properly filed in support of a strike out application and any deficiencies in wording (eg 'sentenced' v 'committed') could be addressed at the substantive hearing; there was no basis to compel a reply affirmation or to stay proceedings.
15 Nov 2012

鄭對黃

Citation

鄭對黃
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1677/2012

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other sufficient interest of justice; the trial judge's factual findings and discretionary decision to reserve part of the sale proceeds for children's maintenance were supported by the evidence and consistent with LKW v DD, and there was no demonstrable legal error warranting appellate intervention.
2 Sept 2009

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. SIMON PATRICK M DURRANT

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. SIMON PATRICK M DURRANT
Court

District Court
Case number

DCTC3415/2008

Adjournment and leave to appeal were dismissed because the defendant failed to demonstrate any error in prior decisions, provided no evidential basis for perjury allegations, and, as governed by the Inland Revenue Ordinance, disputing the Commissioner's computations does not constitute a defence, leaving no prospect of success.
16 Jul 2009

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. SIMON PATRICK M DURRANT

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. SIMON PATRICK M DURRANT
Court

District Court
Case number

DCTC3415/2008

The application was dismissed because no procedural basis was presented to challenge the claimed tax amount or the prior decision; the court will not resolve alleged perjury in this proceeding absent proper application or separate action, and there was no merit to upset the decision of 6 July 2009.
26 Jul 2006

WING HANG BANK LTD v. KIT CHOY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

WING HANG BANK LTD v. KIT CHOY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP5172/2002

The court refused both applications because (1) in inter partes originating summons proceedings there is no absolute duty to disclose documents the plaintiff considers irrelevant, the Bank had acknowledged the documents and the defendant already possessed identical versions so no prejudice was shown, and forensic examination would not advance the defence; and (2) the proposed counterclaim alleging perjury was raised unreasonably late contrary to the requirement to raise counterclaims at the earliest opportunity (RHC Order 28 r 7(2)), therefore both applications were dismissed with costs and t…
4 Jun 1998

Dr. Paul Ki Ping Ki v. Next Magazine Publishing Ltd.

Citation

Dr. Paul Ki Ping Ki v. Next Magazine Publishing Ltd.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV263/1997

The appeal was dismissed because it was filed out of time and because the substantive complaints related exclusively to earlier libel proceedings and therefore could not be used to impeach the Receiving Order; alleged perjury was not established and name corrections did not alter identity.