Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Weight of expert evidence

Legal area

Court

11 Apr 2025

香港特別行政區訴羅浩然

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1472
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA153/2024

On full re‑hearing the court accepted the prosecution witnesses as clear, consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and contemporaneous accounts; the trial judge permissibly rejected the appellant's inconsistent accounts and the expert evidence was not probative on the central issues; therefore the evidence proved each of the three offences beyond reasonable doubt and the convictions must be upheld.
9 Jul 2024

香港特別行政區訴林哲強

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2410
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA70/2023

Trial judge’s factual findings that the injured worker was instructed to perform elevated work, was provided only a wooden ladder, no helmet, no supervision and that the wooden ladder was unsuitable were open to the judge on the evidence; inconsistencies in the witness account were minor and explicable by injury and memory loss; appellant’s expert evidence depended on assumptions unsupported by the record; on the total evidence the prosecution proved the statutory breaches beyond reasonable doubt and the convictions were properly upheld.
31 May 2021

TSE LAI SING v. TUNG WAH GROUP OF HOSPITALS

Citation

[2021] HKDC 643
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1754/2016

Court found applicant had exaggerated physical and psychiatric complaints, preferred respondent's experts on extent of permanent impairment, assessed orthopaedic permanent loss at 2% and psychiatric permanent loss at 0%, endorsed six months' sick leave, and calculated compensation accordingly; Board's 4% figure was not binding given s18 appeal and court started afresh on evidence.
31 Dec 2020

KEE CHAN HING v. LEUNG FUK CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKDC 1256
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4959/2014

The summons for leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed grounds were misconceived and had no reasonable prospect of success: the Parcel Clause and the graphical depiction in the 1992 Assignment unambiguously defined the pink portion, the plaintiff's attempt to rely on stated area or extrinsic materials failed as a matter of construction and fact, the appeal amounted to re-arguing findings of fact, and the applicant's delay and lack of preparation were self‑inflicted; costs were awarded on an indemnity basis given the unmeritorious nature of the application.
27 Nov 2020

LAM KOON YIN v. THE KOWLOON MOTOR BUS COMPANY (1933) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2959
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI521/2015

On the balance of probabilities the driver (Yip) failed to keep a proper lookout and was negligent; KMB is vicariously liable for Yip; the plaintiff was contributorily negligent to the extent of 40%; damages assessed at HK$927,214 reduced by 40% to HK$556,328.40; interest and costs awarded as specified by the court.
18 Dec 2019

CHINA CITIC BANK CORPORATION LTD (QUANZHOU BRANCH) v.LI KWAI CHUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3110
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1439/2017

The stay was dismissed because the appellant's grounds were not reasonably arguable given the weight to be accorded to decisions of the Fujian higher courts and the court's articulated independent reasons for preferring the plaintiff's expert; payment out was ordered because the plaintiff, as judgment creditor, is entitled to the fruit of the registered Mainland judgments and no rival claims or sufficient justification to withhold payment were shown.
4 Sept 2018

陳麗陽對黃林秀

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1074
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4893/2014

The court found the contract terms were as set out in the invoice and oral agreement supported by the defendant's testimony; the defendant had completed his contractual obligations except installation of a kitchen cabinet which the plaintiff failed to provide, therefore the plaintiff breached by withholding the balance; the plaintiff's expert report and unsigned asserted contract were unreliable; judgment entered for the defendant on counterclaim for HK$20,000 plus interest and costs, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.
20 Apr 2018

CHOY PO CHUN AND ANOTHER v. AU WING LUN also known as AU WING LUN WILLIAM

Citation

[2018] HKCA 210
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV177/2017

The Court allowed the appeal because the trial judge failed to address two essential Banks v Goodfellow criteria (understanding the extent of the property disposed of and comprehension/appreciation of claims to which the testator ought to give effect); on the existing evidence there was no sufficient basis to infer those two criteria were satisfied, so testamentary capacity was not established and the 2008 Will could not be upheld. The 2002 Will was therefore pronounced in solemn form and the propounder’s counterclaim dismissed.
30 Jun 2017

WO WANG FU v. WONG KWOK HUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

WO WANG FU v. WONG KWOK HUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI821/2014

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff sustained only a mild soft tissue neck injury with minimal residual stiffness/pain, no residual neurological disability from the accident, and the delusional disorder was not caused by the accident; the court therefore awarded limited damages quantified at HKD231,990 with specified credits, interest and a costs order nisi.
8 Apr 2014

CAPELLA LTD v. ABILITY R&D LTD

Citation

CAPELLA LTD v. ABILITY R&D LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4509/2011

Leave to appeal refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable ground with a reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge's primary findings on defects, completion, variation of materials and liquidated damages were supported by the evidence and not plainly wrong; only a modest concession ($46,549) was required and will be corrected by amendment rather than by granting leave.