Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Credibility of documentary evidence

  • 30 Oct 2025

    CHOI MAN CHIU v. WAN KWAN KAU AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2025] HKDC 1832
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ1874/2022

    The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden to prove, on objective evidence, that he had the requisite factual possession and animus possidendi for the statutory period; his documentary evidence (tenancy agreements stamped in 2022, receipts issued by management where he worked and which he admitted issuing) and witness evidence were unreliable or unpleaded, so adverse possession was not established and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed; defendants' counterclaim for mesne profits failed for lack of proven quantum.

  • 9 Jul 2019

    CK v. TCH

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 179
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5240/2011

    The Respondent failed to prove either proposed ground for variation: (1) the asserted commercial advantage lacked cogent evidence of increased post-redevelopment value; (2) the alleged obligatory surrender under PRC law was unsupported and documentary notices were found unreliable or inconsistent; combined with Respondent's adverse credibility and history of attempting disposals, the Court concluded variation would risk dissipation and prejudice the Petitioner’s ancillary reliefs. Accordingly the Summons was dismissed and the Mareva injunction continued until final determination of ancillary…

  • 23 Jun 2017

    VOAHANGINIAINA AIMEE CHANTAL v. LEUNG MAN KAI

    Citation
    VOAHANGINIAINA AIMEE CHANTAL v. LEUNG MAN KAI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCLA27/2016

    The Court dismissed the appeal because the unpaid sum of HK$24,640 constituted an unlawful deduction under section 32 of the Employment Ordinance: the defendant failed to establish that any statutory exception or valid written consent/agency existed to authorize the deduction or that the common law principle of payment to a third party displaced the statutory, exhaustive regime; the Tribunal's factual findings on credibility and documentary inconsistencies were upheld and any failure to investigate documentary material was immaterial to the statutory conclusion that the deduction was unlawful.