Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evidence and burden of proof

Legal area

Court

10 Apr 2026

RE TAMANG RAM BAHADUR

Citation

[2026] HKCA 516
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV77/2026

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant raised new, fact‑sensitive grounds on appeal which were not argued below and provided no specific particulars to show error; the court found no procedural unfairness or legal error in the Board's decision as it had considered the evidence and given reasons, the applicant had access to English filings and interpreter assistance, and he failed to substantiate his claim, so there was no basis to grant leave.
10 Oct 2025

MA CHUN SHING v. CHUNG BEN FOOD CO. LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1725
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2281/2022

The accident occurred as described and caused the applicant's mid-shaft right femur fracture; on a holistic assessment of the working relationship (fixed salary, no profit/loss exposure, lack of managerial or substitution responsibility, respondent's control over tasks and provision of vehicle and equipment, and reimbursement of expenses) the applicant was an employee at the time of the accident; the Discharge Agreement did not alter the pre-accident relationship and the applicant's duress/non est factum claim was not proved; the single joint medical expert's assessment of 1.5% whole-person p…
27 Jun 2025

田珍妮對盧思燦

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1051
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3648/2023

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant did not replace the water pipes as alleged; plaintiff's evidence was inconsistent, lacked expert support, and admitted possibilities inconsistent with the pleaded case; defendant's photographs and affidavit were accepted as sufficient evidence of replacement; prior Small Claims Tribunal judgment against a different named proprietor did not bar this action because the contract was with the defendant and the SCTT judgment was not correctly directed. Consequently the claim is dismissed and costs awarded to the defendant.
20 Feb 2024

陳淦輝 v. 楊忠 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 357
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1122/2019

The claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show any beneficial interest because there was no credible documentary or consistent oral evidence to support the alleged payments; the tenancy agreement and prior sworn statements contradicted the ownership claim; alternatively, the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice; accordingly the claimant has no beneficial interest and the purchaser is entitled to possession, mesne profits and costs.
8 Aug 2022

廣州市鄰港貿易有限公司 AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2438
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI884/2012

On the facts the arresting officers had a genuine subjective suspicion supported by objectively reasonable grounds arising from the informant's report and the conduct at the depot; therefore arrests and short detentions were lawful and no false imprisonment was proved. Plaintiffs failed to prove possession or legal lien over the containers. There was insufficient evidence of the requisite subjective bad faith or reckless awareness of probable injury on the part of police to establish misfeasance in public office based on prolonged bail or handcuff use; handcuffing was a reasonable preventive…
25 Jul 2022

HYPER LINK LTD 對 EARTH GROUP LTD

Citation

[2022] HKLdT 31
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE317/2022

The lease expired on 27 March 2022 and the respondent failed to surrender vacant possession; the respondent therefore remained an unlawful occupier liable to pay mesne profits at the contractual rent rate from 28 January 2022 until return of vacant possession; documentary rent records provided by the applicant established arrears on the balance of probabilities and the respondent failed to discharge its evidential burden; counterclaims and tort allegations fall outside the Lands Tribunal's jurisdiction; deposits/prepayments were not proven to be rent and cannot be offset; accordingly the orig…
21 Dec 2021

WU KAI WAI AND OTHERS v. OCCUPANTS OF LOT NO. 316 IN D.D. 128, YUEN LONG, NEW TERRITORIES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1538
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3740/2017

The 2nd defendant failed to prove clear, continuous factual possession and animus possidendi of the whole Lot for the requisite period; objective aerial and expert evidence established occupation and structures on the Southern Portion since the early 1980s attributable to the defendant's father, but evidence showed the Northern Portion was only cleared, fenced and developed from c.2007–2013, so adverse possession is only established for the Southern Portion leading to declarations extinguishing plaintiffs' title to that portion and an order for vacant possession of the Northern Portion.
4 Jun 2021

LAND CONCEPT LTD v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2021] HKDC 659
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA111/2016

The court held the four assignments were interdependent parts of a larger transaction and not fortuitous; the stated considerations were artificially suppressed and, absent credible evidence of advance rental payments or commercial rationale for the 6-year tenancies, those tenancies/advanced payments were disregarded under the Ramsay approach; accordingly the assignments were deemed conveyances operating as voluntary dispositions under s27(4) and stamp duty was assessed by reference to the Commissioner’s aggregate valuation of the property ($15,730,000) at the applicable ad valorem rate 3.75%…
19 Apr 2021

CHEUNG KWOK KEUNG t/a WAI PAK IRON WORK CO v. CHEUNG KWOK HUNG t/a KWOK HUNG IRON WORK

Citation

[2021] HKDC 464
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4654/2018

Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proving his re-measurement assessment; in absence of adequate evidence the court adopted defendant's assessment to meet justice. The court found the alleged 15% profit retention and alleged 10% DLP trade practice were not proven and rejected defendant's deductions; the alleged unfulfilled works were outside the contract scope; there was no agreement between plaintiff and the principal contractor to complete within 60 days and no liability for indemnity or delay. Consequently judgment entered for plaintiff for the balance of HK$334,312.81 plus interes…
31 Jul 2020

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CARSON MANSION, KING’S ROAD 對 WONG KUK FUN JENNIFER 王菊芬

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1852
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA2/2020

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law or excess of jurisdiction by the Small Claims Tribunal; the tribunal's factual findings regarding the apportionment, interest and administrative fee were supported by evidence and the appellant's counterclaim failed for inconsistent versions and lack of proof, so there was no basis to grant leave.