Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credibility and burden of proof

Legal area

Court

10 Feb 2025

KHADKA NARBADA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 319
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL39/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to present any arguable grounds or particulars; the Board conducted a lawful, fair and reasonable assessment of the evidence and there was no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality giving the applicant realistic prospects of success.
4 Dec 2024

MD IMTIAZ AHMED CHOWDHURY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3374
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL310/2017

The Leave Application was dismissed because the Board correctly applied the law, fairly evaluated the evidence and COI, made permissible factual findings on credibility and state protection, and there was no demonstrable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality such as would make the application reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
28 Aug 2024

SUEN MA ON v. SUEN CHUN YU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1337
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5032/2019

Plaintiff failed to discharge the high evidential burden to prove adverse possession: his evidence was materially inconsistent and not credible; contemporaneous and corroborated evidence established Defendants' father occupied, farmed and used the Rear Structure and the fence/gate did not exclude Defendants; title remained with Defendants and Plaintiff became a trespasser from failure to deliver up by the agreed date; Defendants entitled to injunctions, demolition/reinstatement and mesne profit measured by the value of the use enjoyed (domestic use for the Rear Structure, agricultural for ope…
30 Nov 2023

CHEUNG KWAI CHI v. KING CHARTER ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3031
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1365/2017

On the evidence and credibility findings the court accepted the Defendants' account that the Plaintiff agreed in or around November 2008 to sell her 20% beneficial interest in the Kin Man Properties for HK$2,304,875 and that the Defendants paid that sum between 20 November and 23 December 2008; the Defendants discharged the burden of proof on the Buy Out Agreement; accordingly the Plaintiff ceased to have any beneficial interest in the Kin Man Properties from 1 December 2008 and her claim is dismissed.
22 Apr 2021

MIAH SHARIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1097
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1410/2018

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were justified by the Applicant's non-attendance and refusal to answer questions, available objective country information supported internal relocation as reasonable, and judicial review cannot be used to rehear the merits absent identifiable legal error.
17 Mar 2020

BALKAR SINGH v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 278
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL370/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the Board failed to give adequate reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal after he refused to give oral evidence; in the absence of any adverse credibility finding the Board should have proceeded to analyse the claim on the basis that it was plausible, rendering the Board’s reasons potentially insufficient and meeting the threshold for leave as established in precedent.
24 Dec 2019

CHONG MING CHING v. CHAN WA YUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1583
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1607/2017

The plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the July Agreement (with the Agreed Sum as an essential term) was concluded at the July 2016 meeting; the payments relied on were not shown to be part‑performance or full performance of any such agreement, contemporaneous documents (notably the SPA with a clearance term) were not produced, and the plaintiff's case suffered material inconsistencies and omissions; defendants were credible — therefore the claim is dismissed.
27 Apr 2018

SUMON MIA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 883
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL914/2017

The judge found that on the facts the Director and the Board reasonably concluded there was a very low risk from the local antagonist, that state protection and internal relocation were available, that the applicant failed to particularise his complaints about COI and failed to establish procedural unfairness from late disclosure or lack of interpretation, and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success in the proposed judicial review application; accordingly leave was refused.
30 Jan 2018

MOHAMMED JAWED v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 199
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL196/2017

Leave for judicial review was refused because the applicant had the opportunity to present additional material but failed to do so at the TCAB hearing, the COI and evidence before the decision‑makers did not establish substantial grounds for believing he faced torture, persecution or a risk to life, the threats were assessed as private criminal acts without state acquiescence, internal relocation was reasonably available, and there was no demonstrable legal error or procedural unfairness warranting review.
17 Jun 2015

BEST ASCENT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. KAI CHIU N.K.ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

BEST ASCENT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. KAI CHIU N.K.ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV203/2014

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's factual conclusion that no enforceable oral modification (to reduce payment time to 5 days and make time of the essence) was reached is supported by the record and not plainly wrong; the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proof and produced unreliable, inconsistent evidence and did not call the key witness; plaintiff's losses were adequately proved and the defendant was not entitled to quantum meruit as a remedy inconsistent with its breach.