Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forensic imaging

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2025

CYBERNETICS 1 LTD v. SUCCESS DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1349
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP19/2024

Relief from sanction was refused because the defendants repeatedly and inexcusably defaulted and failed to apply within the 14‑day limit, they breached the Injunction and Accounting Orders without explanation, their proposed defences lacked merit given the presence of plaintiff's Unique Markers indicating copying, and the defaults caused real prejudice to the plaintiff; solicitor negligence did not justify relief in the circumstances.
17 Dec 2021

HKSAR v. MILNE JOHN

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3824
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC240/2020

Because the prosecution failed to demonstrate a proper, contemporaneous forensic image and reliable chain of custody for P60 (multiple undocumented accesses, incomplete/untimely hashing, no secure preserved copy of extraction and undisclosed prior attempts), the court held that the integrity of the mobile phone data could not be established and therefore none of the data recovered from P60 was admissible.
1 Jun 2021

HKSAR v. LAU TING YIN

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1582
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC174/2020

The court held that the WhatsApp messages, insofar as they are relied upon for the truth of their contents, engage s22A; the prosecution failed to satisfy s22A(2) (no certificate regarding the iPhone operating system/application provider) so s22A(3) applies; the prosecution's handling, transcription and custody of intermediary working discs and schedules (AE312-347) was defective and AE312-347 is inadmissible for lack of verifiable provenance; the call log and WhatsApp entries from 9 February 2019 may be admissible (call log as non‑hearsay and 9 February messages under s22A if properly produc…
31 May 2007

CSAV GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER v. JAMSHED SAFDAR

Citation

CSAV GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER v. JAMSHED SAFDAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV55/2007

The Court allowed the appeal and held that the order requiring further and better list and affidavit in respect of the hard drive and the broad classes 2, 3 and 4 was not justified because relevance was at best peripheral, discovery was unnecessary for fair disposal or saving costs, the classes were overbroad and vague, and plaintiffs already possessed the primary records; accordingly discovery of the hard drive and those classes was not ordered and costs were to be paid by the plaintiffs nisi to the defendant.

Hong Kong Case Law

CYBERNETICS 1 LTD v. SUCCESS DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. MILNE JOHN

HKSAR v. LAU TING YIN

CSAV GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER v. JAMSHED SAFDAR