Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Best evidence rule

Legal area

Court

1 Feb 2018

HKSAR v. LAU CHEUK NGAI

Citation

[2018] HKCA 59
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC38/2017

The court held that the first limb issue (standard for prima facie authenticity) raises a question of law and may be appealed as such; the common law best evidence rule does not apply to video/film footage so admission of copies was not precluded, and on the facts no reasonably arguable mixed law and fact grounds against conviction were made out; leave to appeal against conviction was refused except for the stated legal point, but leave to appeal against sentence was granted.
13 Jan 2006

TANG YIU HONG, ERIC v. HKSAR

Citation

TANG YIU HONG, ERIC v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC90/2005

The application for leave was dismissed because the best evidence rule is largely inapplicable or confined to narrow circumstances, the original document was not available and inquiries had been made, no objection was raised at trial or in the Court of Appeal and the summing‑up addressed the issue even‑handedly; therefore there was no substantial and grave injustice warranting leave.
29 Apr 1994

QUADRO PROPERTIES INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD. v. FUNG KAI FUNG

Citation

QUADRO PROPERTIES INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD. v. FUNG KAI FUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8933/1992

The vendor did not discharge the contractual obligation to show and prove good title by completion because originals were not produced and no acceptable explanation or proof of loss/destruction with reasonable steps taken to obtain originals was offered; no binding agreement to accept plain copies with post‑completion certified copies was proven. Therefore the purchaser validly rescinded and is entitled to recover deposits, stamp duty, title investigation costs, indemnity for agent's commission and interest and costs.
19 Mar 1993

GOLDENFIX PROPERTIES LTD. v. CHEER HOPE INVESTMENTS LTD.

Citation

GOLDENFIX PROPERTIES LTD. v. CHEER HOPE INVESTMENTS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2940/1992

The statutory declaration offered by the vendor was inadmissible as sufficient proof of due execution because the vendor failed to produce the best evidence reasonably within its reach or to provide an acceptable statutory explanation why such best evidence could not be produced; therefore the purchaser was entitled to reject completion and recover its deposit.
25 Oct 1991

KOK YUN KUEN v. AU YEUNG BIK TAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

KOK YUN KUEN v. AU YEUNG BIK TAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2021/1991

Where a party has made reasonable search and shown good reason for non-production of original conveyancing instruments, registered memorials may be treated as sufficient secondary evidence to prove the making of those instruments and, where the memorials permit, their contents; applying that rule to the memorials produced in this case, the vendors established the chain of title and thus a good title to the property.
8 Mar 1977

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG CHEE-KWONG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG CHEE-KWONG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC269/1976

Prints of microfilm (PP16(1)-(45)) of bank computer reports are admissible under Section 40 because the microfilms constituted the bank's permanent record, the originals were destroyed/unavailable, the printouts were certified as true copies and Section 40 was intended to admit such prints irrespective of the separate conditions in Section 22; consequently PP16 admitted and PP17 extracts excluded.
25 Mar 1976

LAI HING v. J. CATER AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAI HING v. J. CATER AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP512/1976

Section 17(1) does not authorize indefinite retention to freeze assets and thereby circumvent the court procedure in s.14C; retention under s.17(1) is justified only while reasonably necessary to obtain evidence from the item or where the original document is essential proof and no alternative exists; here the receipts on their face contained no evidence and the primary purpose of retention was to prevent plaintiff using funds, so the receipts must be returned and the Commissioner should have applied for a restraining order if required.
15 Mar 1974

WONG YEE TAI AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG YEE TAI AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC839/1973

Oral evidence of an oral post-arrest statement was admissible because the statement was proved voluntary and the best evidence rule did not bar oral proof of an oral statement recorded in writing; the second defendant's conviction and seven-year sentence were upheld on the evidence; the third defendant's conviction was quashed because the summing-up may have misled the jury regarding presumptions of possession and there was insufficient direct evidence connecting her to the drugs, rendering the verdict unsafe.
31 Dec 1946

LIEW PAI WIN v. FOO SHING TRADING CO

Citation

LIEW PAI WIN v. FOO SHING TRADING CO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP36/1946

Tribunal factual findings were upheld because it was better placed to resolve conflicting evidence; Rule 33 and the correspondence justified reliance on secondary evidence; Proclamation No.15 Article 5(1)(a) gives tribunals jurisdiction to decide which claimant is the bona fide tenant and order eviction, but Article 5(4) requires preserving existing subtenancies unless the Tribunal directs otherwise; accordingly the appeal on merits and jurisdiction fails, but the eviction order must be varied to protect subtenancies and costs awarded to respondent.