Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hearsay admissibility

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

YONG LI INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER v. LEE SING LEUNG ROBIN

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2341
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA542/2016

The court found the Oral Agreement (3 Conditions) as previously determined by Recorder Chow and accepted by defendant, and proved the Deed and Letter were signed by defendant; defendant failed to prove the alleged December 2009 global settlement and therefore breached contractual obligations by causing loss of the 50m shares and failing to transfer the 50,856,000 promissory-note entitlement; plaintiffs entitled to damages of HKD 3,600,000 (shares) and HKD 50,856,000 (promissory note) with interest and costs; defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
22 Apr 2026

LAM TSZ YEUNG, a minor suing by his father and next friend, LAM YAU PING v. THE INCORPORATED MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF ST. JOSEPH\'S COLLEGE

Citation

[2026] HKDC 518
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2739/2025

The court found the requested CCTV footage and interview records to be directly relevant to key factual disputes and likely to be relied on in evidence; the applicant's affidavit evidence was admissible for interlocutory purposes under Order 41 r5(2) and Evidence Ordinance principles; and pre-action discovery was necessary in this potential personal injury case for saving costs and to determine whether to commence proceedings. Accordingly the court ordered disclosure and production within 14 days and awarded costs to the plaintiff.
26 Mar 2026

CHIANG CHI HANG v. JIANG RONGHUA

Citation

[2026] HKDC 586
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1301/2021

On the evidence the court found the Refund Agreement existed (defendant undertook to refund 100 ETH in ETH and compensate loss of interest if ICO/Listing failed); plaintiff proved transfer of 100 ETH and that defendant only refunded 44,000 USDT; the USB audio and transcripts were admissible and corroborative; defendant breached the agreement; plaintiff elected common law damages and was awarded compensatory damages based on market value of ETH and assessed lost interest, totalling US$252,397.33; counterclaim dismissed.
13 Feb 2026

CISSIE SUEN MIU LING, also known as SUEN MIU LING CISSIE v. KONG YUEN LING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 264
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ35/2023

The 2nd defendant proved continuous factual possession and the requisite intention to possess the property from September 2004 by exclusive acts of control (changing locks, paying rates, paying substantial renovations and outgoings and changing the registered rates payer); the plaintiff failed to prove an oral tenancy from late 2004; accordingly the plaintiff's claim against the 2nd defendant was time‑barred and the 2nd defendant acquired possessory rights under the Limitation Ordinance ss7 and 17.
26 Nov 2024

ANTHONY FRANCIS LI and CLARENCE A LI, Managers of LI TO WAN TSO v. KWOK WUI KNITTERS LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3472
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1044/2019

The Subject Aff is inadmissible as hearsay because the plaintiffs failed to exchange witness statements in breach of the Unless Order which debarred them from adducing evidence from factual witnesses; the court refused to exercise its discretion under O.38 r.2 or r.2A(10) to admit the affirmation given the defendant’s legitimate interest in cross-examination and absence of satisfactory explanation for AFL’s non-attendance abroad.
21 Jun 2024

YU GUO QIANG v. LI CHUN PUI

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1006
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3979/2021

On the evidence (WhatsApp messages, security guard photos, contemporaneous correspondence and adverse inferences from Defendant's failure to call key witness and silence in contemporaneous communications) the court found the first two payments totaled HK$260,000 were for the 1st Oral Agreement and the third payment HK$120,000 for the Central Project; the works on the 16th and 17th floors were worth HK$25,000 and unpaid; Defendant committed conversion of Plaintiff's tools (excluding five challenged perishable/items) and damages assessed by applying a 20% depreciation to proved purchase price r…
25 Mar 2024

LEE SZE MAN (sue by CHING KWONG MING her mother and next friend) v. CHEUNG KIN WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKDC 458
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI648/2018

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the plaintiff’s account corroborated by CCTV/video evidence, the Forensic Report establishing seminal stains with DNA from both parties, and the Joint Medical Report diagnosing PTSD and schizophreniform disorder caused by the incident. The 2nd Defendant breached its duty by failing to supervise, to implement practicable safeguards and to prevent female residents being alone with male staff, and the 1st Defendant was an employee of the 2nd Defendant so vicarious liability attaches. Damages were assessed on psychiatric injury and consequential…
1 Mar 2024

RICH ENGINEERING LTD v. FIRE SERVICE INSTALLATION CONTRACTORS DISCIPLINARY BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 648
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2378/2020

The appeal is allowed in part: the Director was misjoined but the Board’s composition and conduct did not establish institutional bias; Regulation 9(3) was not breached; PSI and cross‑examination grounds failed; however convictions for Cases #19, #23 and #26 are unsafe due to inadequate reasons and insufficient notice and are set aside and remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted Board; conviction in Case #28 is set aside; convictions in Cases #20, #21, #22, #24, #25 and #27 stand but sentences are remitted for reconsideration with reasons; costs awarded with specified apportio…
11 Jan 2024

HKSAR v. YIP SIN WAH

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 139
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA253/2022

The appeal is dismissed because the trial magistrate properly and carefully assessed the aural identification evidence (finding it credible and reliable), permissibly relied on surrounding circumstantial WhatsApp evidence as context (without treating its contents as proof of truth) to draw an irresistible inference of continuous conduct, and correctly concluded the words and conduct amounted to criminal intimidation with intent to alarm; there was no misapplication of law or undue prejudice warranting interference.
12 Oct 2023

GHALE SANTOSH v. GREGORY JOHN McLAUGHLIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1442
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2401/2019

The court found the 1st Defendant liable for the assault and the 2nd Defendant liable for failing to provide an adequate system of work (insufficient practical training/guidance and failure to summon assistance), admitted and relied on CCTV and surveillance evidence to resolve factual disputes, rejected causation for the Plaintiff's shoulder and elbow complaints as related to the incident, accepted causation only for forehead laceration, dental injury, residual right little finger stiffness and partial psychiatric injury, assessed damages accordingly and set those damages off against the empl…