Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Standard of review on findings of fact

  • 8 May 2026

    香港特別行政區 訴 鄭小魚

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 2503
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA39/2024

    The application was refused because the matters raised are essentially factual disputes previously considered and determined at trial and on appeal and do not involve a point of law of great and general importance as required by s32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

    • Assaulting police officer
    • Permission to appeal under s32
    • Standard of review on findings of fact
    • Admissibility/power to take fingerprints
    • Alleged judicial bias and procedural fairness

  • 16 Jan 2026

    陳俊城 對 潘駿樂

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 12
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP85/2025

    The applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success because he merely repeated factual allegations and allegations of unfairness without identifying errors in the trial judge's reasoning; absent clear error the appellate court will not overturn credibility and factual findings; accordingly leave to appeal is refused and the application is struck out, with costs and a bar on re-application under Order 59 r2A(8).

    • Leave to appeal
    • Standard of review on findings of fact
    • Assessment of arguability
    • Costs
    • Procedural bar under high court rules order 59 r2a

  • 3 Dec 2025

    SIKDAR RATNA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 5502
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL221/2020

    Leave to apply for judicial review was granted and time extended because it was reasonably arguable that the Board's decision was tainted by procedural unfairness (failure to warn the 1st applicant about adverse consequences of delay and to give opportunity to address perceived inconsistencies) and that the Board failed to assess the 2nd applicant's claim separately and with the highest standard of fairness; despite unexplained delay the court exercised discretion to extend time in the interests of fairness.

    • Non‑refoulement/asylum
    • Procedural fairness (brown v dunn)
    • Judicial review leave and threshold
    • Extension of time/delay
    • Representation of minors
    • Standard of review on findings of fact

  • 23 Jan 2025

    黃藝文 對 JUDY SETIAWAN

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 389
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCSA63/2024

    The application for leave to appeal is refused because the applicant's complaints were purely factual and credibility challenges without any demonstrated error of law or excess of jurisdiction; the review judge applied correct legal principles and was entitled to uphold the tribunal's factual findings.

    • Leave to appeal
    • Jurisdictional limits
    • Standard of review on findings of fact
    • Credibility assessment

  • 10 Sept 2024

    曹元緒 對 孫洪亞

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 1455
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ5438/2019

    The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant simply repeated evidence and arguments already rejected at trial without identifying any obvious or perverse errors in the trial judge's factual findings; he failed to challenge the registrar's decision within the required time and adduced no evidence that additional witnesses would have produced material evidence; allegations of judicial bias were unsupported.

    • Leave to appeal
    • Standard of review on findings of fact
    • Judicial impartiality
    • Procedure for witness summons
    • Costs

  • 9 Sept 2005

    LAU KWAN HANG v. CHINA OVERSEAS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    LAU KWAN HANG v. CHINA OVERSEAS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCLA48/2005

    Because the Tribunal made a factual finding, supported by evidence, that the Claimant was a secret partner and not an employee, there was no error of law and therefore no basis to grant leave to appeal.

    • Employee vs partner status
    • Leave to appeal
    • Standard of review on findings of fact
    • Secret partnership
    • Undischarged bankruptcy