Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credibility of evidence

Legal area

Court

16 Feb 2026

MEHTAB SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 941
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1295/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds, the Board's Decision contained detailed and adequate reasoning, the Board properly assessed credibility and evidence, found state protection available and internal relocation viable, and the court detected no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review under the applicable standards including the enhanced Wednesbury test.
20 Jan 2026

RE VAST LUCK COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 428
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW587/2025

Refusal of further adjournment and making of a usual winding up order because the Company admitted the undisputed debt, repeatedly failed to make promised payments or deliver a bank draft, produced unreliable and contradictory evidence of prospective funding with no documentary proof, and therefore could not demonstrate a reasonable prospect that funds would be injected to avoid winding up.
19 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5958
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL527/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds of review, the TCAB had applied correct legal principles and made reasonable credibility and fact findings, and there was no reasonably arguable case of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality that would justify judicial review.
27 Nov 2025

香港特別行政區訴鄧繼祖

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1062
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC96/2025

Leave to appeal against sentence was refused because the trial judge’s factual findings on credibility and knowledge were supported by the transaction evidence and established authorities, the 21-month starting point with a 6-month mitigation to 15 months was within a reasonable and non‑excessive range, and there was no arguable basis to reduce the sentence on appeal.
9 Sept 2024

王議瑩對葉耀錦及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1422
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5080/2021

The court found the plaintiff had clear, open and continuous factual possession and the requisite intention to possess the rooftop unit from 9 December 2003; under the Limitation Ordinance plaintiff acquired possessory rights by 9 December 2015 and the registered owner lost the right to recover possession; the second defendant unlawfully locked and occupied the unit from 10 August 2018 with the first defendant's authorization such that both defendants were jointly and severally liable for plaintiff's losses; plaintiff awarded HK$302,000 plus interest and costs.
30 Dec 2022

GOTLAND ENTERPRISES LTD v. KWOK CHI YAU AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3846
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4550/2003

The 6th defendant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that he entered into exclusive adverse possession of the disputed land within the required window (August 1991 to 15 October 1991). His written and oral evidence was inconsistent and contradicted the agreed expert survey and aerial photographic evidence (which indicated pre‑existing fences and temporary structures). Consequently his counterclaim for adverse possession fails and the plaintiff is entitled to possession and a declaration that its title was not extinguished by limitation.
14 Jun 2022

香港特別行政區訴冼啟流

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1786
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA11/2022

The appeal is dismissed because the prosecution evidence was credible and sufficient to support a conviction for careless driving; the trial judge's incidental misdescription of the vehicle was a clerical error that did not affect the outcome; appellate courts will not disturb rational factual findings on credibility.
31 Jan 2022

HUANG HANHUA v. LAM CHE KUEN

Citation

[2022] HKDC 53
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1684/2016

The court found the Applicant's account more credible, concluded the Respondent was aware of the accident and deliberately evaded service at the two addresses, held service and judgments were regular under the rules (including s14 Cap 282B), and determined the Respondent failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success; accordingly the set-aside summonses were dismissed.
17 Nov 2021

SALLEH ABU BAKER v. ANWAY LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3407
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2359/2019

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff failed to prove an oral variation of the three‑month notice clause; the Plaintiff's own contemporaneous letter and admissions negated any concluded agreement, the alleged 18–24 month notice was commercially implausible and unsupported by documentary/electronic evidence, therefore the contractual three‑month notice remained effective and the Plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
16 Nov 2020

LAW WAI KEUNG v. POVIMASS DESIGN ENGINEERING (HK) LTD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 1044
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2743/2018

Claimant's asserted pre-accident earnings were not proven and were exaggerated; court accepted HK$700 daily wage, 9 working days per month with 6 days eligible for overtime, producing a monthly earning figure of HK$13,500 and applied s.10, s.9 and s.10A calculations yielding a net payable judgment of HK$292,750 after crediting prior payments and ordering interest and costs.