Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility

Legal area

Court

24 Mar 2026

HKSAR v. EKSTROM PATRIK TOBIAS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 514
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC186/2024

The Mohini references were admissible as part of the complainant's account of what the appellant said to coerce her, defence counsel expressly allowed and used that material making a specific uncharged‑act direction unnecessary, and there was no realistic risk of impermissible propensity reasoning; the WhatsApp voice messages, while not explicit in using the word 'rape', were made within hours, to the employer's wife, in distress and in context were capable of amounting to recent complaints of sexual wrongdoing and were admissible; the judge's directions limited the messages' use to assessing…
12 Feb 2026

WU JUN v. CAPTAIN HOLDINGS LTD (In Compulsory Liquidation) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1063
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA106/2022

The court dismissed the interlocutory application as premature: the admissibility of Hu's witness statement cannot be finally determined before trial because Hu's attendance was uncertain but possible; Chan's statement should not be struck out because he may give admissible evidence based on documents and company records and the court should not engage in exhaustive line‑by‑line deletion pre-trial; costs follow the event.
12 Jan 2026

HO KWAI WA 對棉紡會中學法團校董會

Citation

[2026] HKDC 49
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1533/2023

Except for two discrete factual clarifications (questions (4) and (5)), the expert's report did not contain medical ambiguities requiring oral evidence; many of the applicant's queries arose from non-medical issues or misinterpretation of the report and can be resolved by the judge or by a written supplementary report. Given the likely disproportionate costs of oral expert attendance relative to the claim, the application to summon the expert was refused; respondent must instead seek written answers and a supplementary report from the expert within specified time limits. Applicant ordered to…
22 Sept 2025

HKSAR v. CHAN SZE CHUN

Citation

[2025] HKCA 870
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC171/2023

Leave to appeal was granted on (a) whether a genuine but mistaken belief direction was required and (b) admissibility of the Sad Toefl exchange, because both were reasonably arguable; all other grounds against conviction and the appeal against sentence were refused as not reasonably arguable or lacking merit; the sentence of 8 years was not manifestly excessive and the judge’s factual findings were supportable.
17 Jan 2025

FAN LIAN v. WONG KA KEUNG

Citation

[2025] HKDC 109
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC710/2022

The court granted leave because the three supplementary witness statements were relevant, material and necessary to answer new matters raised by the respondent and to fill gaps in the applicant's evidence; no prejudice or trial delay was demonstrated; permitting them serves fair and expeditious disposal and preserves case management; conversely, blanket leave for further reply statements was refused to avoid an endless cycle of evidence.
7 Jan 2025

HKSAR v. LI CHEUNG CHOI

Citation

[2025] HKCFA 1
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC9/2024

An accused's out‑of‑court statements to a medical expert remain hearsay if used to prove the truth of their contents; they are admissible only as the factual basis for an expert's opinion and the weight of such opinion is for the jury to assess; the court will not create a new common‑law exception extending the mixed statement rule to admit such statements as proof of their truth and any reform is for the legislature.
16 Sept 2024

香港特別行政區訴李家田及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1171
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC164/2022

The court held that the prosecution had established prima facie authenticity of the digital evidence extracted from the defendant's iPhone using Cellebrite and that police expert 8774 was qualified to give the necessary expert evidence; therefore the Cellebrite-derived exhibits are admissible, while further challenges to reliability and weight are matters for the jury at trial.
3 Sept 2024

HKSAR v. HUNG HING LUEN

Citation

[2024] HKCA 844
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC3/2024

Leave to appeal against conviction was granted because the grounds challenging the admissibility of the 2022 complaints, the correctness of the jury directions on consistency and truthfulness, and the adequacy of directions on the complainant's distressed condition raised reasonably arguable issues affecting the safety of the convictions.
30 Nov 2021

KADER INDUSTRIAL CO LTD v. HOP SHING ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3606
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT73/2020

Leave to adduce the proposed expert evidence was refused because the HKSL report constituted expert evidence for which no leave had been sought and so was inadmissible as a basis for BY's opinion; BY's inspection occurred after removal and demolition of the roof works so lacked the necessary factual foundation to form reliable opinions on the Defendant's works; and BY, as an architect, lacked the required expertise to opine on cause of water seepage and rectification costs; therefore the proposed evidence would not assist the Court and the application was dismissed with costs ordered.
7 Jul 2021

HKSAR v. PURUGGANAN ROGELIO GARCIA

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2339
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC196/2020

Emails downloaded directly from Gmail by an officer without forensic safeguards, contemporaneous recording or proper chain of custody were not shown to be authentic or reliably derived from the July 13, 2019 exercise; s22A hurdles could not be met and the manner of obtaining and using the emails produced unfairness to the defendant, therefore the application to adduce P48 was refused and none of the emails admitted.