16 Dec 2025
Bail pending appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that his intended appeal had a very high prospect of success or that his sentence was so short that refusal would be unfair; the judge found the grounds advanced were unmeritorious given the applicant's own admitted facts, prior convictions, period of absconding and the reasoned sentencing analysis of the trial judge.
28 May 2024
Plaintiff's factual account was inconsistent with contemporaneous medical and handwritten statements and implausible in light of objective evidence (photographs and defendant witness evidence showing metal stackable chairs); the more probable explanation is that the plaintiff sat on a missing/fallen chair rather than a defective/collapsed chair caused by defendant; res ipsa loquitur does not apply; on balance of probabilities defendant not liable and claim is dismissed.
26 Apr 2024
Trial judge accepted the 12‑year‑old complainant's credible and consistent evidence that the appellant's whole palm contacted her buttock for 1–2 seconds; appellant's inconsistent, implausible account and demonstrable differences with his pre‑trial statements undermined any innocent explanation. The touching could not reasonably be accidental; prosecution proved indecent assault beyond reasonable doubt; 28 days' imprisonment was an appropriate deterrent sentence and was upheld.
21 Oct 2022
Leave to appeal was granted because the conflict between DW4's evidence and the prosecution witnesses was reasonably arguable such that the safety of the conviction could be questioned, and because credible fresh post-sentence evidence relevant to mitigation was available to challenge the sentence.
14 Jul 2022
Court found on balance of probabilities that the Deceased would have supported his parents and sister but not the grandmother separately. Awarded parents HK$5,000 per month combined (HK$2,500 each) and sister HK$10,000 per month for the period of study. Calculated pre-trial and post-trial losses accordingly (pre-trial parents HK$317,500; post-trial father HK$543,300 and mother HK$773,400 using agreed multipliers; sister HK$600,000 for 60 months). Rejected defendants' submission to deduct annual dependency from accumulated savings and accepted estate claim for loss of accumulation of wealth on…
22 Apr 2022
The court found no conduct by the appellant that was sufficiently connected to the charged offence to constitute self‑exposure or to have misled the prosecution; the conviction was quashed on merits (not merely technical); accordingly the appellant was entitled to recover the costs of the original trial and the appeal, with any dispute as to amount to be assessed by the taxing officer.
10 Dec 2021
On the balance of probabilities the court found the overall economic reality and evidential picture pointed to the applicant operating his existing Blue Star business and/or as a partner/independent operator rather than an employee of the respondent at the time of the accident; the cooperation arrangement had effectively ended by the 1 October 2015 documents and the applicant was borrowing respondent's vehicle rather than working under respondent's control, therefore respondent not liable under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance for the 13 December 2015 injury.
15 Sept 2020
On the whole evidence the court found the 1992 and 1999 wills valid and the 1999 and 2001 wills were executed with testamentary capacity; no proven undue influence by James; the 2004 Will could not safely be propounded because of deterioration evidenced by low MMSE score and uncertainty about understanding at execution; accordingly the 2001 Will was propounded as the last valid will (with fallback to 1999 and 1992 if necessary).
26 Jul 2019
The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate's acceptance of the prosecution witnesses' clear, consistent and uncontradicted evidence and adverse credibility findings against the appellant were within reason and free of demonstrable error, therefore the conviction and sentence were properly upheld.
9 Nov 2018
The defendant raised substantive, credible factual disputes about the source and location of the leak and the causal connection to the plaintiffs' ceiling damage; those disputes cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence alone, therefore summary judgment was refused and the defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend and case management directions were given.