Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evaluation of evidence

Legal area

Court

9 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4637
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1833/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the TCAB had considered all material evidence, applied the correct legal principles under the Unified Screening Mechanism, reasonably concluded the applicant's allegations were not established and that state protection and internal relocation were available, and there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting court intervention.
19 Sept 2025

已故林秀明遺產管理人仇育萍對黃娟

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4363
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA17/2025

The application for permission to appeal is refused because all alleged grounds challenge the Tribunal's factual findings; the Tribunal's conclusion that the applicant failed to prove the transfer was supported by the evidence and there was no demonstrated legal error (no lack of evidential basis, no consideration of irrelevant material, no failure to consider material evidence, nor an illogical or perverse inference) that would justify intervention by this Court.
10 Feb 2025

沈世成及另二人對名富工程服務有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 633
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA23/2024

Permission to appeal was refused for the grounds in Form 14 because they amounted to challenges to factual findings and credibility assessments that do not raise arguable points of law; however permission was granted on a newly-pleaded legal ground concerning whether the Tribunal's order requiring three months' wages for Ho Yiu Kwong was inconsistent with or exceeded the jurisdictional limit prescribed by Employment Ordinance s43C (the identified clerical/error point).
12 Jul 2023

謝英傑對皇城企業有限公司及另一人

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1805
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA15/2023

Leave to appeal was granted because the case raises substantial questions of law and fact about employment status and because the Tribunal's reasoning on summary dismissal and the quantum of unpaid wages lacked sufficient factual exposition, warranting appellate consideration and review of the hearing transcript.
6 Sept 2022

KAMBAY LAMIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1300
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP168/2022

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant's ~2 month delay was substantial, his reasons (unawareness of time limit and lack of representation) were not valid, he failed to identify any arguable error in the Judge's earlier refusal of leave and there was no reasonable prospect of success; evaluation of evidence is for the Director and the Board and the appeal was therefore hopeless.
30 May 2022

RE KARIMOU ISSA BACHIROU

Citation

[2022] HKCA 773
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP130/2022

Extension of time refused because applicant was late, advanced no viable grounds of appeal, sought to introduce new factual assertions not previously before the Director, Board or Judge, and the Board had given clear cogent reasons with no error of law; the intended appeal had no prospect of success, so extension would be futile.
1 Apr 2022

RE GURUNG SANTA BAHADUR

Citation

[2022] HKCA 490
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP177/2021

Refusal to extend time upheld because the delay was substantial, the applicant failed to give good reasons for the delay, the intended appeal was unarguable, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Judge's refusal of leave.
15 Jan 2021

香港特別行政區訴李志強

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 112
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA292/2019

The appeal was allowed because the trial magistrate failed to address two material matters — the complainant's remarks immediately after the alleged assaults suggesting consensual banter and irreconcilable versions about the timing and sequence of events (including whether food was already provided before the alleged touching) — which materially undermined the complainant's credibility; absent the trial judge's advantage of witness demeanour, the appellate court found the conviction unsafe and quashed the conviction and sentence.
13 Jan 2021

張富金對九龍巴士（一九三三）有限公司

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 134
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA39/2020

Leave to appeal refused because the applicant’s complaints concern factual findings and credibility assessments made by the Tribunal, not questions of law or jurisdiction under s.28 Cap.338; no arguable legal error or jurisdictional issue was identified, and the applicant’s insurance or income do not constitute a legal basis for relief.
25 Nov 2020

RE SANDHU SUKHJINDER SINGH

Citation

[2020] HKCA 935
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV156/2020

The judge correctly applied legal principles: the Board's findings that harassment had ceased and internal relocation was viable were matters for the Board and not vitiated by error of law or procedural unfairness; the applicant failed to particularize or present evidence showing a reasonably arguable ground of public law error or state acquiescence, thus there was no basis to grant leave and the judge's refusal was plainly correct.