Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evidence assessment

Legal area

Court

27 Apr 2026

KOUAKOUVI AHLONKO SEYRAM KODJO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2237
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL58/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any valid or reasonably arguable public law grounds and the Board's decision could not be impugned for error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality given its assessment of the evidence, COI and psychiatric material and the applicant's failure to provide consistent statements or attend medical examinations.
13 Apr 2026

RE AGUS WAHYUDI

Citation

[2026] HKCA 484
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV40/2026

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to show any reasonably arguable error in the Judge's refusal of leave; the Board applied the correct legal tests and made lawful assessments of state protection, future risk, hearsay and internal relocation which are within its primary fact‑finding remit, and the Judge properly applied the leave standard rather than conducting a merits review.
13 Feb 2026

香港特別行政區訴黃皓恆

Citation

[2026] HKCA 462
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC365/2025

Bail pending appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable, let alone very high, prospect of success on his proposed conviction and sentence appeals; the trial judge's handling of evidence and admissions did not reveal the legal error alleged under Thongjai; the remand custody credit issue is administrative under s67A and not a proper basis for bail; family or mental stresses did not outweigh these factors.
17 Sept 2025

YCR also known as CRY v. YSJ nee SJE

Citation

[2025] HKFC 157
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCJA2423/2018

Leave to appeal dismissed because applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal with reasonable prospects of success; the judge's discretionary relocation decision, evidence assessments and welfare balancing were within the permissible ambit of judicial discretion, no procedural impropriety or appearance of bias established, and post‑judgment materials did not amount to a material change warranting reconsideration.
10 Jun 2025

NGUYEN THI LIEN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1916
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL506/2025

The Director lawfully refused the subsequent claim because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under section 37ZO; the applicant's grounds were bare re-litigations of prior facts and thus there was no realistic prospect of success; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed and a Restricted Proceedings Order was properly made to prevent abuse of process.
22 Apr 2025

香港特別行政區訴谷翠香

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1611
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA270/2024

On re‑hearing the court accepted the prosecution witnesses and video evidence as credible, rejected the appellant's account as not credible, concluded the evidence proved all elements of the three fixed‑penalty offences beyond reasonable doubt, and held the aggregate fines were within lawful sentencing range and not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
21 Feb 2025

香港特別行政區訴鍾浩輝

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1951
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA364/2024

Dashcam footage, witness evidence and expert speed estimates established the appellant failed to reduce speed and collided with a nearly stationary vehicle; the trial judge properly accepted witness credibility including the appellant's admission of 'dozing off' and those facts meet the threshold for dangerous driving under s.37(1) RTO. There was no procedural unfairness warranting quashing conviction. The sentence (HK$5,000 fine and 1‑year disqualification with driving improvement course) was within proper exercise of discretion and not manifestly excessive.
10 Feb 2025

沈世成及另二人對盈匠工程有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 633
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA24/2024

Permission to appeal was refused for grounds that merely challenge the Tribunal's factual assessments because those do not raise arguable legal errors; however permission was granted for a discrete legal question whether the Tribunal's award ordering three months' wages for one claimant exceeded the statutory limitation under Employment Ordinance s43C, which presents an arguable point of law and/or jurisdictional issue.
30 Oct 2024

香港特別行政區訴黃建明

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3721
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA490/2023

Trial judge's acceptance of the complainant's and her brother's consistent accounts that the appellant deliberately swept his hand upward across the complainant's right thigh near the buttock, combined with the absence of any need to place his hand in her seat area and the bus being stable, permitted only the inference of intentional and indecent touching beyond reasonable doubt; on rehearing the High Court agreed and dismissed the appeal.
25 Oct 2024

RE KANDAGODA GAMAGE AMILA MADURANGA

Citation

[2024] HKCA 973
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV247/2024

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or provide reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review; the Judge correctly concluded there was no realistic prospect of success and the documents the applicant sought to rely on had already been considered by the Director and the Board.