Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Expert evidence credibility

Legal area

Court

28 May 2024

CHEUNG YAN TAI v. 卿旺大廈業主立案法團

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 44
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM16/2023

On the balance of probabilities the tribunal found that persistent water leakage at the three locations existed since October 2021 and that defective external walls or failed waterproofing systems of Flat 16A were at least one cause of the leakage; the IO failed to discharge its duty under s.18(1)(a) BMO by not obtaining timely professional advice or carrying out remedial works, therefore a mandatory injunction and damages were appropriate remedies.
1 Dec 2023

WONG, CHI HUNG v. LO, WING PUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1663
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1960/2019

Leave to appeal was granted for grounds raising substantial questions of law of general importance and prospect of success (Grounds 1 and 2 on application of Ryder and Emeraldian, Ground 6B on relevance of practical enforcement of foreign law, and Ground 9 as incidental to Foreign illegality analysis); leave was refused where issues were factual, academic or without reasonable prospects (pleading points, total failure of consideration already established, no‑subversion academic given that finding, identification/confiscation factual issues and expert credibility challenges). The court applied…
20 Feb 2023

WONG WAI PING AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MOUNT PARKER LODGE

Citation

[2023] HKDC 249
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5891/2020

On the balance of probabilities the court found the waterproofing membrane failure at the localized main seepage area was caused by accelerated deterioration due to focal added loading and wind strain transmitted by the heavy main canopy through the small base plates, shortening the membrane's lifespan at those spots; the IO was not entitled to rely on the Exemption Clause as it does not apply to the IO; accordingly plaintiffs' claim for reimbursement was dismissed and plaintiffs ordered to pay the IO's costs (order nisi).
20 Dec 2007

AU KAI LEUNG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

AU KAI LEUNG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR11/2006

Tribunal rejected the Applicant's URA purchase comparable and the Applicant's three small-sized, temporally proximate comparables as inappropriate due to size disparity and subjective adjustments; accepted the Respondent's comparables with inclusion of RC S3 and applied a 15% upward adjustment for location/traffic to most comparables; adopted an average unit rate of HK$59,125 per sq.m and calculated present and total values, ordering compensation accordingly.
6 Dec 2001

L. REX PRINTING CO. LTD. v. TODTRI PRODUCTIONS LTD.

Citation

L. REX PRINTING CO. LTD. v. TODTRI PRODUCTIONS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10270/2000

The defendant's counterclaims were speculative, lacked necessary particulars and admissible evidence, and the UI counterclaim arose from a later, separate transaction so was not sufficiently connected to the plaintiff's liquidated claim to permit equitable set-off; accordingly the Master rightly required payment into court and the appeal was dismissed.
18 May 2000

KO MAN WO v. WOON LEE CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

KO MAN WO v. WOON LEE CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1312/1996

The primary cause of the accident was the negligence of the proprietor of the 3rd defendant in improperly handling and securing the panel; although the 1st defendant had a non-delegable duty under s38A, the evidence established the 3rd defendant bore the greater share of responsibility, so apportionment of the $1.5 million balance is 90% to the 3rd defendant and 10% to the 1st defendant.
15 Jan 1999

WONG SZE SHUN SYSON AND ANOTHER v. AU MEI LING EVA AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG SZE SHUN SYSON AND ANOTHER v. AU MEI LING EVA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5646/1997

The court accepted the plaintiffs' factual evidence and the plaintiffs' expert, rejected the defendants' expert explanations, found causation established that the water originated from the 14th floor burst pipe and that the defendants were liable for the resulting special damages; award was limited to proven items totaling $13,490 and costs on the District Court scale.
26 Jul 1983

THE QUEEN v. HONG YIU FAT

Citation

THE QUEEN v. HONG YIU FAT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC381/1983

The failure to give a full and careful direction on the legal effect of alleged withdrawal and the necessity for continuing intent up to the moment of strangulation made the murder conviction unsafe; omissions regarding the expert's disbelief were not prejudicial. The appropriate remedy was to quash the murder conviction and substitute a verdict of guilty of attempted murder.