Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Standard of proof (balance of probabilities)

Legal area

Court

18 Mar 2025

MOK KIN KAU MCNARY 對 MOK WING YI

Citation

[2025] HKDC 308
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ633/2021

Permission to appeal was refused because the plaintiff has no reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge's factual findings—based on contemporaneous documents, witness evidence and the plaintiff's lack of enquiries—reliably rejected the plaintiff's assertions that the defendant held shares on trust or owed the monetary sums; there is no basis to vary the interim costs order given only limited success by the plaintiff.
23 Oct 2024

丘翠蓮對 LOTUS EMPLOYMENT AGENCY LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2988
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA2/2024

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the grounds were predominately factual, not legal, the tribunal's reasons addressed the substantial issues and there was no demonstrable legal error or excess of jurisdiction by the Small Claims Tribunal; the claimant therefore failed to show an arguable legal issue entitling her to leave to appeal.
11 Nov 2022

邵志煒對 BROADWAY PROFESSIONAL SOUND (H.K.) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3369
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA30/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because the issues raised were factual credibility and evidence questions, not pure questions of law under s28(1); the tribunal correctly found claimant failed to prove an oral monthly agreement on the balance of probabilities.
15 Jun 2022

王海珍及另一人對方健民及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1796
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA6/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any legal error or excess of jurisdiction by the tribunal; the applicant's complaints were challenges to factual findings (including alleged forged documents) which do not constitute a pure question of law and therefore do not satisfy s28(1) Cap.338.
27 Jul 2021

RE NLS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2203
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMH4/2020

On the balance of probabilities the court found NLS to be a mentally incapacitated person within the meaning of Part II MHO because the court‑observed interview, supported by the independent Court Expert (Dr Chung) and applicant expert (Dr Wong), demonstrated significant impairments (notably failure to recall large gifts/withdrawals, poor insight into legal expenditures and inability to manage complex business/rental decisions) so that NLS cannot manage and administer his property and affairs.
18 Jan 2021

HKSAR v. YIK SIU-HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 60
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC561/2013

On the balance of probabilities the court found Transactions 1 and 2 were proceeds of the offences and that D2 benefited to the value of HK$9,000,000 (Transactions 1–5); D3 received and dealt with HK$3,000,000 and any subsequent return did not negate that she had benefited; accordingly confiscation orders were made for HK$9,000,000 against D2 and HK$3,000,000 against D3 with specified payment periods and default imprisonment terms.
11 Jul 2019

CHAN SHIU CHONG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2019] HKCA 758
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP54/2019

The Court dismissed the leave applications: the Tribunal applied the correct Siu test and the correct standard (balance of probabilities), its factual assessments based on site inspection and available evidence were lawful, the fresh land search records did not create a reasonable prospect of success on appeal, and there was no other interest of justice to permit appeal.
21 Aug 2018

TAN QI 對殷富城經營正生純銀店

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1875
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA18/2018

The applicant's dissatisfaction related solely to the Tribunal's findings of fact rather than any error of law or excess of jurisdiction; no legal error was demonstrated and the applicant failed to show an arguable appeal, therefore leave to appeal is refused.
7 Dec 2017

HKSAR v. MUSAH HAKEEM TAHIRU alias TAHIRU MUSA HAKEM

Citation

HKSAR v. MUSAH HAKEEM TAHIRU alias TAHIRU MUSA HAKEM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC464/2015

There is no jurisdictional bar to a DTROP s3 confiscation application merely because the defendant was acquitted of a separate dealing-in-proceeds offence; the DTROP inquiry is civil in standard and distinct from criminal verdicts. On the balance of probabilities the defendant benefited from drug trafficking and the seized cash (US$736,100, HK$24,005.10, EUR€1,170) represents proceeds, and the court ordered recovery of HK$5,765,749.40. The defendant was sentenced to 14 years 9 months imprisonment for trafficking with specified enhancements.
21 Nov 2017

LACHY v. YC

Citation

LACHY v. YC
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCJA2057/2016

The mother failed to produce compelling, cogent evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that Ms. N sexually abused or behaved inappropriately towards the child; the observed conduct was more plausibly explained as normal exploratory behaviour of a young child and the allegations amounted to conjecture; accordingly Ms. N is exonerated, the father's undertaking is discharged, and the mother is ordered to pay costs on a party and party basis to be taxed if not agreed.