Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credibility and cross-examination

Legal area

Court

6 Nov 2025

HOMEMAIN HOLDINGS LTD v. LI CHAOBO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5299
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA595/2021

The court accepted the applicant's evidence that LH was prevented from leaving the Mainland by legitimate travel restrictions and, applying a proportionality analysis, concluded that the prejudice to the Plaintiff of excluding LH's evidence outweighed the speculative prejudice to the 2nd Defendant; improvements in video conferencing and the limited extent to which the trial turned on LH's credibility meant effective cross-examination could be conducted remotely, so leave to adduce LH's evidence by video link was granted in terms of the agreed draft directions.
25 Apr 2024

MAXFUL SAIL LTD v. YAU CHUNG WO JEREMIAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1140
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2003/2019

The summons for specific discovery was refused because the documents sought were not necessary to dispose fairly of the dispute about the Assignment's validity, were only marginally relevant at best, amounted to a fishing expedition directed to credit/credibility rather than to matters which required production, and it was too late in the proceedings to challenge locus; accordingly discovery would be disproportionate and unnecessary and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
22 Mar 2024

CHOW LILY v. CHOW WAI WAI VIOLET AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 887
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP22/2019

The court held that paragraphs 275–278, 302–308 and 310 of the plaintiff's supplemental witness statement were expunged because they were not relevant to the primary issues in the probate action and did not materially affect the credibility or objectivity of the independent witnesses; the probative value was insufficient and the matters were speculative and collateral, risking undue complexity and unfairness. Paragraphs 311 (and its heading) and 321 were allowed to remain as they were relevant to the primary issues or to the credibility issues with an adequate foundation. The appeal was there…
24 Apr 2018

HKSAR v. DUMAYAG, ANALYN PEDRO

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 825
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA668/2016

Appeal allowed and conviction quashed because the prosecutor's failure to cross-examine the appellant on critical credibility issues, combined with the magistrate's reliance on those unchallenged criticisms, breached the rule in Browne v Dunn and rendered the conviction unsafe, notwithstanding that the magistrate correctly declined to stay proceedings on trafficking grounds.
1 Mar 2017

吳雪蓮 v. 洪永潤又名HONG YONGRUN（洪永润）及另二人

Citation

吳雪蓮 v. 洪永潤又名HONG YONGRUN（洪永润）及另二人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA621/2014

Given the direct conflict between the plaintiff's bare allegation and the 1st defendant's bare denial, the absence of contemporaneous documentary support and gaps in the plaintiff's evidence, the credibility issues can only be resolved at trial after cross-examination; accordingly the court must grant unconditional leave to the 1st defendant and order costs in the cause.
16 Apr 2008

HKSAR v. CRUZ PABLO JR. IGNACIO

Citation

HKSAR v. CRUZ PABLO JR. IGNACIO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA977/2007

Magistrate's interventions did not amount to bias and were permissible; the credibility findings for PW1 and PW2 were properly reached despite minor discrepancies; the physical evidence and agreed fee corroborated their account; attempting to examine a decoy while donning mask/glove and agreeing a fee constituted holding oneself out as practising dentistry within s.2(2) or otherwise amounted to practising dentistry; therefore the convictions were safe and the appeal is dismissed.
20 Jun 1997

R. v. LEE CHEE WAH

Citation

R. v. LEE CHEE WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA300/1997

The sergeant's conduct and the taped telephone conversations created a lurking doubt about the veracity of the police case; because the prosecution did not dispel that doubt beyond reasonable doubt, the appellate court allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions for trafficking and resisting and set aside the sentences.
29 Dec 1980

HO MAN CHAW v. THE QUEEN

Citation

HO MAN CHAW v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC963/1980

The conviction was unsafe because the magistrate failed to give the appellant an opportunity to explain material discrepancies between prior ICAC statements and his sworn evidence on the critical issue whether the donor was a close personal friend under Regulation 7(2)(d); that procedural omission warranted quashing the conviction and ordering a retrial.
27 Oct 1978

SHUM SHU PUI v. THE QUEEN

Citation

SHUM SHU PUI v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC815/1978

The learned Magistrate erred in permitting questioning and evidence about prior convictions that was inadmissible for the issues before the court and then relied upon that inadmissible material in convicting the appellant; because the conviction was influenced by inadmissible evidence it was unsafe and must be quashed.