Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evidence sufficiency

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2025

VU THI THUY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4530
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1768/2025

The Director correctly applied section 37ZO and relevant legal tests, found no significant change of circumstances and reasonably concluded the additional material was insufficient to give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; there was no legal error, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
2 Jun 2025

HKSAR v. LUNG HON LAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 522
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC260/2024

Leave to appeal against conviction was granted because there are reasonably arguable grounds that the judge erred in finding the underlying business to be a sham, may have misapplied HKSAR v Wong Chor Wo by treating business accounts as equivalent to lending an account, and did not sufficiently analyse the 'reasonable grounds to believe' element, rendering the convictions potentially unsafe.
10 May 2024

RE DWI INDRA SARI

Citation

[2024] HKCA 432
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV256/2023

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance and relied on vague, unsupported, fact‑specific assertions that do not demonstrate any error in the Court of Appeal judgment.
7 Feb 2024

香港特別行政區訴潘惠英

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2519
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA49/2023

在控方未傳召受影響之私家車司機且無直接證據證明該車因上訴人轉線而急剎及響號的情況下，且上訴人提供的有利證供未被有效推翻，控方未能在毫無合理疑點下證明上訴人轉線時不夠謹慎，故撤銷定罪及判刑。
10 Aug 2023

香港特別行政區訴劉曜彰

Citation

[2023] HKCA 967
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC147/2022

Appellate court upheld the trial judge’s factual findings that the contemporaneous WhatsApp communications together with on-scene observations provided sufficient evidence that the applicant knowingly organised and assisted the movement of unauthorised entrants and that he entered into an agreement to assist another unauthorised entrant; the factual findings and sentencing exercise were not vitiated by procedural unfairness or manifestly excessive, therefore leave to appeal was refused and convictions and sentences affirmed.
13 Jan 2022

RE GRAND BRIGHT INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 264
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW283/2021

The application for appointment of provisional liquidators was refused because, even if a prima facie case for winding up might exist, the petitioner failed to show a necessity to appoint provisional liquidators to protect assets or to investigate: the petitioner had not exercised available director inspection rights, omitted material and relevant facts from the petition and affidavits, and a validation order had been granted that reduced the need for such appointment.
15 Sept 2021

RE MOHAMMED SAQIB

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2688
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1777/2018

Extension of time was refused because the applicant's 12-week delay was substantial, his explanations for the delay were unsatisfactory, and the intended judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success given the adjudicator's and TCAB's findings of insufficient evidence to support the non-refoulement claim.
31 Jul 2020

TSS v. TPM

Citation

[2020] HKFC 147
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC791/2016

On the facts and applying s.11 MPPO and the broad brush approach, the court accepted the parties would share children’s expenses equally, found the husband breached his undertaking and produced insufficient evidence to displace the wife's claims, ordered specified lump sum release and recurring monthly payments to be paid out of the court-held sale proceeds and discharged/varied the husband’s obligation to pay interim maintenance thereafter because payments will be met from the family assets held by the court.
26 Jun 2020

香港特別行政區訴呂浚森及另二人

Citation

[2020] HKCA 516
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC331/2018

The appeal succeeds in respect of convictions based on the amended charges because the late substitution of 'acting as triad members' materially altered the prosecution's case and prejudiced the defendants given the prior abandonment of key confession evidence; that amendment could not be characterized as merely technical and therefore convictions under charges (1) and (3) must be quashed. Separately, the trial judge's finding that the three appellants (aged about 13-14) had sufficient maturity and understanding to rebut doli incapax on the remaining charges was upheld based on their age, sch…
20 Aug 2019

陳瑞華對上訴委員會（房屋）

Citation

[2019] HKCA 925
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV586/2018

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the judge's refusal of leave because the Appeal Committee's detailed fact‑finding that the applicant failed to produce sufficient evidence to justify refusal of four reallocations was a reasonable and lawful value judgment; there was no demonstrated public law error, procedural unfairness, or manifest misunderstanding of material facts warranting intervention, and the applicant could not raise new grounds on appeal that were not presented at the permission stage.