Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Findings of fact vs law

Legal area

Court

15 Mar 2024

鄧偉良 v. 張本楠 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 762
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA41/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable question of law: the Deputy Adjudicator made permissible factual findings on credibility and reliance (including that the claimant did not rely on any FEHD report), applied the correct legal test for deceit requiring cogent evidence, and did not misapply law or show bias; costs were properly left as no order.
29 Oct 2019

P v. C

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2625
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT27/2019

Leave to appeal refused because the Court, applying Schedule 2 s6, concluded the arbitrator's factual findings and his holistic assessment of evidence were open to a reasonable tribunal and not 'obviously wrong'; the arbitrator validly found notices complied with Clause 28 and validly construed the contract to allocate responsibility for window openings to the Plaintiff; therefore the high threshold for leave was not met.
25 Aug 2017

蕭嘉恒對環球資產集團有限公司

Citation

蕭嘉恒對環球資產集團有限公司
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA14/2017

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the appellant's stated grounds were challenges to the Tribunal's factual findings (on dismissal/resignation and rest‑day entitlements), did not raise any question of law or jurisdiction under Cap.25 s32, there was no reasonable prospect of success, and the appellant lacked proper legal representation under Cap.4A r5(6).
21 Apr 2011

W. M. INDUSTRIAL (K.C.C.) LTD v. ADVANCE PLAN LTD

Citation

W. M. INDUSTRIAL (K.C.C.) LTD v. ADVANCE PLAN LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA37/2010

There was no arguable point of law for the grant of leave to appeal because the learned adjudicator made findings of fact (including admission of leakage and inference of causation) which cannot be challenged on appeal under s28 Cap.338; the matters raised by APL were attacks on factual findings or invited reassessment of evidence rather than points of law, therefore the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 May 2002

HA HAU KWAN FONG MARY v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GOLDEN PLAZA

Citation

HA HAU KWAN FONG MARY v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GOLDEN PLAZA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT9/2002

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's complaints solely challenged the arbitrator's findings of fact rather than raising any question of law; the arbitrator had sufficient evidence to make the findings (including disbelief of the applicant and conclusions about tenancies) and was entitled to reject affirmation evidence in a paper hearing; therefore no basis existed to grant leave or set aside the award.
24 Jan 2000

VIZCARRA, BRENDA V v. WONG WAI PING

Citation

VIZCARRA, BRENDA V v. WONG WAI PING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCME9/1999

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of law; the appeal merely disputed findings of fact by the Adjudication Officer concerning termination and payment of wages, which does not justify appellate intervention.

Hong Kong Case Law

鄧偉良 v. 張本楠 AND ANOTHER

P v. C

蕭嘉恒 對 環球資產集團有限公司

W. M. INDUSTRIAL (K.C.C.) LTD v. ADVANCE PLAN LTD

HA HAU KWAN FONG MARY v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GOLDEN PLAZA

VIZCARRA, BRENDA V v. WONG WAI PING

蕭嘉恒對環球資產集團有限公司