Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Requirement for expert evidence

Legal area

Court

10 Apr 2026

香港特別行政區訴薛俊希

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2058
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA270/2023

Accepting PW1's credible technical and factual evidence and the totality of admitted facts, the court concluded the appellant, unauthorised, used the SendPush interface to send five false push notifications which were stored on TVB's managed server and thereby added data and caused the computer system to operate otherwise than as its owner intended; appellant had no honest belief of authorization and no lawful excuse, proof beyond reasonable doubt established, appeal dismissed.
16 Jun 2020

FONG CHONG CHUEN v. THE BOYS’AND GIRLS’CLUBS ASSOCIATION OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2020] HKDC 360
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI548/2018

Leave to appeal denied because none of the proposed grounds met the reasonable prospect of success threshold: the trial court's findings that the collapse was due to inability to bear the combined weight of three participants and that the risk of that collapse was reasonably foreseeable were supportable on the evidence; the defendant elected not to call expert evidence and cannot now complain; specific pleading of precise cause was unnecessary where duty and breach were pleaded; latent defect was not demonstrated; the balancing exercise was fact sensitive and correctly performed; and no basis…
12 Aug 2016

香港特別行政區訴容溟舟

Citation

香港特別行政區訴容溟舟
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA252/2016

Although the magistrate relied in part on observations from the admitted dashcam and drew an inference about distraction which was not the sole basis for his credibility finding, the magistrate made an overall credibility assessment supported by other evidence; there was no unfairness or absence of evidential foundation sufficient to overturn the conviction, so the appeal is dismissed.
27 Mar 2015

HKSAR v. LAM CHI YUEN

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM CHI YUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC14/2014

The trial judge was entitled to reject the defence evidence as not truthful; given admitted nil declared incomes, the pattern and magnitude of deposits and withdrawals across the seven accounts, and the minimal closing balances, there was compelling evidence that the accounts served as repositories for proceeds of indictable offences and thus reasonable grounds existed for conviction; absence of expert evidence did not invalidate that finding; accordingly leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed.
28 Apr 2014

STRACHAN, FRANCES EVA v. KAREN HAU YAN SHUM

Citation

STRACHAN, FRANCES EVA v. KAREN HAU YAN SHUM
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2497/2013

The Statement of Claim was struck out because, taken as a whole, it disclosed no reasonable cause of action: it failed to plead facts showing breach of the professional standard or to file the requisite expert medical opinion on causation and liability, and it contained many irrelevant, scandalous and vexatious allegations; the proposed amended Statement of Claim would not cure those defects and was therefore refused; consequentially the action and the default judgment summons were dismissed and costs were ordered to the defendant nisi.
5 May 2009

CARITAS-HONG KONG v. YU KWONG MAN t/a MEI HUI LOK INTERIOR DECORATION AND FURNITURE CO

Citation

CARITAS-HONG KONG v. YU KWONG MAN t/a MEI HUI LOK INTERIOR DECORATION AND FURNITURE CO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2441/2007

The court found on the balance of probabilities that only one screw was used (insufficient contrary to usual practice of two screws), that the cabinet fell during normal use and the inadequate installation caused the injury, and therefore the Defendant was negligent and liable to indemnify the Plaintiff for the compensation paid.
13 Apr 1993

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG SHING WAI

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG SHING WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1181/1992

The Magistrate erred in excluding evidence from a lay witness with substantial experience driving similar vehicles on the question of vehicle weight and speed capability; such evidence is admissible without expert testimony and its exclusion warranted allowing the appeal and quashing the conviction.
27 Aug 1981

LO TIT SHING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LO TIT SHING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC673/1981

At the close of the prosecution case the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of illegal bookmaking against either appellant: the incoming telephone messages and paraphernalia, without more, did not permit a reasonable inference of joint enterprise or individual guilt; Exhibit P.9 was rightly rejected absent expert proof; toilet flushing and delay in admission gave rise only to suspicion. Accordingly convictions and sentences could not be supported and were quashed.