Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appeal on question of law

Legal area

Court

17 Feb 2025

WOO TAK YAN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 664
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA67/2024

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the grounds raised questions of fact and credibility not law; the Deputy Adjudicator properly investigated and made factual findings that EPD acted reasonably, attempted to return the belongings, and acted as an involuntary bailee, so there was no conversion or trespass; there was no legal error, procedural unfairness or apparent bias, and the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
13 Sept 2024

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. 華德剛

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2232
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1174/2023

Leave under s480(1) was refused because the applicant failed to justify an exception to the statutory prohibition: the intended purpose (pursuing an appeal) was futile because the adjudicator correctly held the claim was not within the tribunal's jurisdiction and the applicant provided no evidential basis that the appeal raised a question of law or had merit; futility therefore outweighed reasons for granting leave.
8 Jan 2024

CHU KIT 對 YUNG CHUNG WONG及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 61
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA35/2023

The application for leave to appeal is refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any legal error or exceedance of the tribunal's jurisdiction; the High Court will not disturb the tribunal's factual findings absent such legal error.
1 Dec 2023

DELUXE ASCENT LTD v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1330
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV316/2023

The Court held that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply the fact and degree test to the question of abutment and by treating the Government Strip as necessarily preventing abutment; applying the correct principles the Resumed Lots abut Castle Peak Road and thus constitute a class A site under reg 18A BPR, entitling them to the corresponding site coverage; the Tribunal was wrong to find that any right of way was extinguished by the 1984 resumption; the Tribunal also acted unfairly and unlawfully in capping site coverage by reference to marketability without affording the applicant a…
16 Mar 2022

HEATH BRIAN ZARIN v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 412
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV75/2020

The Court of Appeal held that on the facts the releases of the 2012 restricted shares (Sums B2 and C) and the payment for assistance (Sum D) derived from a fresh bargain in the Termination Agreement with fresh consideration for post-termination obligations; the dominant purpose and substance of the payments was not to reward past or ongoing employment and therefore they were not income "from" employment under section 8(1) of the IRO, so the CIR's appeals were dismissed.
27 Jun 2019

律政司司長訴梁志光及另一人

Citation

[2019] HKCA 623
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC336/2018

The Court held that the accountant records seized were admissible for the non‑hearsay purpose of permitting the court to infer that the totals in the profit and loss statements were composed of the detailed items in the trial balance and related records; that this inferential use did not require treating the records' contents as proven and did not in this case require an independent forensic accountant because the linkage was demonstrable from the documents; the trial judge was wrong to exclude those documents and to require forensic accounting evidence, and therefore the acquittals based on…
9 Apr 2019

MAEDA KENSETSU KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA also known as MAEDA CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. BAUER HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 916
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT4/2018

The Court allowed the appeal on the notice compliance issue because Clause 21 requires strict compliance with Clause 21.2 including identification of the contractual basis of the claim and the Defendant failed to comply; therefore the Arbitrator erred in law in permitting a different legal basis to be pursued. The Court dismissed the appeal on valuation because the Arbitrator's cost‑based 'fair and reasonable' valuation (including cost plus overheads and profit) for the instructed Variation fell within the permissible range of conclusions available to him and did not amount to a legal misdire…
22 Feb 2019

BUDA PIPE REHAB ENG CO LTD v. CPC CONSTRUCTION HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 503
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT69/2018

The Schedule did not apply to the BP Contract because there was no written arbitration agreement between LW and CPC as required by section 101; alternatively, even if the Schedule applied BP failed to identify the question(s) of law or show the arbitrator was 'obviously wrong' on matters that were primarily findings of fact (waiver/estoppel and interim quantum); accordingly leave to appeal and other relief were refused and the originating summons dismissed with indemnity costs.
12 May 2016

GOLDEN BEST INVESTMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

GOLDEN BEST INVESTMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA39/2015

The Court held the deputy adjudicator's factual findings were within the range of reasonable conclusions: the Building Authority had statutory authority to carry out and apportion emergency repair costs; the posting of the s.33 Certificate on the incorporated owners' notice board constituted effective service under the Buildings Ordinance and, on the totality of evidence admissible in Small Claims proceedings, the Claimant failed to rebut service; the adjudicator properly exercised the duty to inquire; and there was no proven bias. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
30 Sept 2011

LEUNG SUK FONG PEGGY v. THE PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE CO LTD

Citation

LEUNG SUK FONG PEGGY v. THE PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCME11/2010

The Board's factual finding that the claimant was an independent agent, not an employee, is upheld: the overall impression of the relationship showed lack of employer control over time/place/manner, claimant bore financial risk and earned on commission, sourced her own clients, and the Agreement expressly disclaimed employment; no Edwards v Bairstow ground was established to justify appellate interference except an isolated point which did not alter the outcome.