Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evidentiary burden

Legal area

Court

10 Apr 2025

LAI WAI CHUN v. CHAN PUI CHUEN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 650
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1933/2021

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff failed to prove continuous factual possession of the Disputed Land and the requisite animus possidendi for the statutory limitation period: occupation and development were confined south of the pool, large areas remained densely vegetated and uncultivated for prolonged periods, fences/gates and footpaths sufficient to establish exclusive possession only appeared from 2015, documentary evidence was lacking, and therefore the plaintiff’s adverse possession claim fails; judgment entered for the defendant on the counterclaim for recovery of possession…
4 Mar 2024

姜義紅對香港中華煤氣有限公司

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 600
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA1/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's grounds were confined to factual and credibility complaints that do not raise any question of law or show that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, and the Court will not grant permission to re‑open pure factual findings on appeal.
21 Jul 2022

吳隨有訴律政司司長

Citation

[2022] HKSCT 3
Court

Small Claims Tribunal
Case number

SCTC20434/2020

Applicants failed to discharge the evidential burden to prove the value of their losses or any mental distress. The tribunal correctly refused to treat a post-judgment invoice as proof and properly exercised its limited investigatory duty under s16(3). The award of HKD100 as symbolic damages was lawful and will not be disturbed.
7 Jan 2022

ONG SIU SIN KEVIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 9
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP250/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show that the Court of Appeal was wrong in dismissing the extension of time application and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b); procedural non-compliance and lack of evidence undermined the application.
18 Mar 2019

CHAN SHIU CHONG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2019] HKLdT 19
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR2/2012

On the evidence, the applicants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that redevelopment of the Subject Properties was likely as at the resumption date; the Tribunal therefore correctly excluded redevelopment value and assessed existing use value. There was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and leave to appeal was refused; costs to follow the event.
18 Mar 2019

TSE SUI LUN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2019] HKLdT 19
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR3/2012

The Tribunal refused leave to appeal because the applicants failed on a balance of probabilities to demonstrate that the subject properties had redevelopment potential as at the resumption date; there was no evidence of proposals or persons (including developers) ready to assemble the sites, the presence of nearby redevelopments did not inexorably establish redevelopment potential for all similar buildings, and therefore market value based on existing use was correctly adopted, giving the intended appeal no reasonable prospect of success.
30 Jun 2015

黃坤平對張素芬

Citation

黃坤平對張素芬
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1716/2011

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff failed to prove continuous and uninterrupted adverse possession for the required 12 years because material interruptions and periods of non‑use are shown by maps, correspondence, electricity records and witness evidence (notably interruptions around 2004–2006, 2007–2008 and 2010–2011); consequently plaintiff did not acquire title by adverse possession and his claim is dismissed.
27 May 2014

張志明對創庫迷你倉有限公司

Citation

張志明對創庫迷你倉有限公司
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3726/2011

Although the vendor's standard two‑page terms were in principle incorporable and form part of the licence, the defendant failed to give the plaintiff reasonable notice before invoking clause 9.3; the court found the plaintiff did not prove receipt of the July faxes and that defendant did not know of the 27 July bank payment, but because the defendant's 18/19 July notice and conduct did not constitute reasonable notice to reassert the forfeiture/clearance right the clearance on 4 August 2011 was wrongful; damages are awarded on the proved inventory with symbolic values for unproven items and a…
8 Oct 2010

HKSAR v. CHENG KONG SANG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG KONG SANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC371/2008

The trial judge's rejection of the defence relied on an erroneous factual assumption and unsupported findings; on the evidence the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant possessed the heroin for the purpose of trafficking, therefore the conviction for trafficking was unsafe and was set aside and substituted with a conviction for simple possession contrary to s8 Cap.134; applicant remanded pending DATC report under s54A.
16 May 2007

CHAN KAM KEUNG t/a C.K. DECORATION & DESIGN CO v. ERGO DECORATION CO LTD

Citation

CHAN KAM KEUNG t/a C.K. DECORATION & DESIGN CO v. ERGO DECORATION CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7928/1999

The court accepted the plaintiff and independent documentary evidence that the plaintiff was the defendant's subcontractor and rejected the defendant's account and its asserted 1st and 2nd Agreements as unproven and commercially improbable; accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the proven sum with interest and costs.