Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Appellate review of findings of fact

  • 9 May 2025

    RANDEEP S GREWAL v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

    Citation
    [2025] HKCA 398
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV3/2024

    The Court affirmed that under s8(1) IRO the place where services are rendered is not relevant to the general charge; the situs of the employment (deemed locality of the contract/employer residence/CMC) determines whether income arises in or is derived from Hong Kong, with place-of-service issues addressed by s8(1A)/(1B); the Board's factual finding that the employer (Green Dragon) was resident/controlled in Hong Kong was not perverse and the appeal is dismissed.

    • Salaries tax
    • Source of income
    • Place where services rendered
    • Situs of employment
    • Central management and control (cmc)
    • Deeming provisions (s8(1a),(1b))

  • 5 Mar 2025

    SIU WAI MING v. SHIU WAI HONG AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2025] HKCA 237
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV84/2020

    The Court upheld the trial judge’s factual findings that the plaintiff, by his words and conduct in the May 1998 telephone call and by his subsequent conduct, manifested a change of common intention surrendering his beneficial interest in the Scenic Garden property; the 1st defendant believed and relied on that surrender and assumed the responsibilities thereafter; the trial findings were not plainly wrong; accordingly the constructive trust ceased and the plaintiff’s claims (including against the 2nd–4th defendants) failed.

    • Common intention constructive trust
    • Change of beneficial ownership
    • Surrender/waiver of equitable interest
    • Detrimental reliance
    • Dishonest assistance
    • Knowing receipt

  • 21 Nov 2024

    LUCKWAY PROPERTIES LTD v. LIU, CHI KONG AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 1069
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP295/2023

    The Court refused leave to appeal out of time because D7's proposed grounds were plainly unarguable: the trial judge's detailed factual findings that D7 failed to prove continuous exclusive possession and animus possidendi for the requisite period were supported by the evidence and not plainly wrong, the applicant offered no other reason in the interests of justice to hear the appeal, and the one‑day delay was not a sufficient ground to extend time given the lack of reasonable prospects of success.

    • Adverse possession
    • Possessory title
    • Extension of time to appeal
    • Leave to appeal
    • Appellate review of findings of fact
    • Costs

  • 2 Nov 2023

    香港特別行政區 訴 朱狄德

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 2816
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA308/2021

    The conviction stands because the trial judge was entitled to accept the police witness as honest and reliable overall despite reservations about whether the phone screen itself was visible; the judge did not misplace the burden of proof and the appellate court will not overturn credibility findings absent irrationality or impossibility.

    • Use of mobile phone while driving
    • Witness credibility
    • Appellate review of findings of fact

  • 29 Sept 2023

    POON LOI TAK, the Administrator of the late POON NUEN, deceased v. POON LOI CHEUNG DESMOND

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 2516
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA3348/2016

    The Stay Summons was dismissed because the appeal was not arguable with reasonable prospects of success given it primarily raised questions of fact with no palpable errors in the trial judge's findings and the Defendant's late and uncredible evidence; alternatively, even if arguable, the Defendant failed to show good reasons or that execution would render the appeal nugatory or be irreparably prejudicial.

    • Stay of execution
    • Donative intent
    • Joint bank account
    • Appellate review of findings of fact
    • Assessment of witness credibility
    • Costs

  • 14 Sept 2023

    CAPITAL CENTURY TEXTILE CO LTD v. LI DIANXIAO AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 2053
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA263/2012

    The application for a stay pending appeal was dismissed because the appeal was assessed as having no merit and the applicant failed to demonstrate the additional reasons required to justify a stay; therefore the trial judge's factual findings and orders (including orders to account) should stand.

    • Stay pending appeal
    • Appellate review of findings of fact
    • Accounting for profits
    • Restitution
    • Forfeited deposits
    • Rental income

  • 24 Mar 2023

    LEE AH KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. 李國忠transliterated as LEE KWOK CHUNG AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 449
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP477/2022

    The 1st defendant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success on appeal: the trial judge's primary findings were not plainly wrong; the proposed further evidence failed the first Ladd v Marshall criterion (it could have been obtained with reasonable diligence); the hearsay evidence was properly admissible and its exclusion would not alter the result; accordingly leave to appeal and stay were refused and the summons to adduce further evidence dismissed with costs.

    • Adverse possession
    • Possession
    • Leave to appeal
    • Admission of further evidence on appeal
    • Hearsay evidence
    • Costs assessment

  • 17 Feb 2023

    SALLEH ABU BAKER v. ANWAY LTD

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 187
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV568/2021

    The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's findings that there was no proved oral agreement to vary the 3-month notice clause were reasonable and not plainly wrong; the appellant failed to discharge the high burden to displace the judge's credibility and factual findings, making it unnecessary to decide issues of estoppel or authority.

    • Variation of contract
    • Notice period
    • Non-compete clause
    • Estoppel
    • Apparent authority
    • Appellate review of findings of fact

  • 16 Mar 2022

    HEATH BRIAN ZARIN v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 412
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV366/2021

    The Court of Appeal held the CIR's appeals must be dismissed: Sums B2, C and D were not "income from employment" under s8(1) IRO because they were paid pursuant to a fresh Termination Agreement as consideration for post-termination obligations (fresh bargain/fresh consideration) and the judge was entitled to disturb the Board's conclusions as they were contrary to the true and only reasonable conclusion on the primary facts and inferences.

    • Salaries tax
    • Income from employment
    • Restricted share awards
    • Termination agreements
    • Burden of proof
    • Appellate review of findings of fact

  • 15 Jun 2021

    TSE’S BROTHERS CO LTD v. KINGHALL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2021] HKCA 874
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV391/2018

    The Court upheld the trial judge’s findings of fact: the evidential matrix (including 1994 Agreement, the 1st Addendum, contemporaneous memoranda and admissions) established that Tse’s Brothers held Unit 16G on resulting trust for Chong Sang and Tai Wing in equal shares and that Tai Wing had knowledge of and accepted the contents of the Composite Agreement and Oral Agreement; proprietary estoppel also operated to preclude denial of Chong Sang’s 50% entitlement. The appeal grounds challenging these fact findings and newly raised contractual defects failed; appellate intervention was not warran…

    • Resulting trust
    • Constructive/common intention trust
    • Proprietary estoppel
    • Mesne profits
    • Agency
    • Enforceability and certainty of agreements