Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review of factual findings

Legal area

Court

7 Jan 2026

BUI THI HOA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 114
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2298/2025

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed: delay of eight months was substantial with an unsatisfactory explanation; the intended judicial review had no realistic prospects because the Board's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the applicant's grounds were vague and lacking particulars; judicial review not a forum to re‑assess the Board's factual findings.
9 Oct 2025

BADAL DAS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4766
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1954/2025

Leave was refused because the immigration officer correctly applied the law on subsequent claims (s37ZO), properly assessed the submitted materials, found no significant change of circumstances or realistic prospect of success, provided adequate procedural fairness including translation and referral to Duty Lawyer Service, and reached a decision that was not irrational or Wednesbury-unreasonable.
2 Aug 2024

譚炳瑞對李倩芳

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2001
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA14/2024

Leave to appeal was granted on two limited grounds where the Tribunal's written reasons may be inadequate (failure to explain rejection of the collateral damage claim and the specific finding recorded at paragraph 58). Other factual assessments (averaging repair quotes, 50% depreciation, quantum of general damages) did not disclose arguable legal error and were not granted leave; appellate interference requires irrationality, lack of evidence or misapplication of relevant considerations.
20 Feb 2024

嘉麗華有限公司及另一人對稅務局局長

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 532
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA6/2023

The application for leave is refused because all proposed grounds are impermissible factual challenges dressed as legal issues; the Tax Board applied the correct evidential standard and properly weighed audited accounts and other evidence; applicants failed to discharge the burden to show the assessments were excessive or incorrect; the privilege point was not raised below and is unsupported, and no arguable legal issue with a reasonable prospect of success was shown.
14 Jul 2023

律政司司長對余德穎及另七人

Citation

[2023] HKCA 877
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC278/2021

Appeal court held (1) defective service of the case‑stated appeal documents within the statutory timeframe deprived the court of jurisdiction to proceed against certain absent defendants so the appeal was dismissed in respect of those defendants; (2) on the substantive law, a two‑person agreement can constitute conspiracy to participate in an unlawful assembly or riot if, at the time of agreement, the parties intended, knew or were aware that the agreed act would necessarily or foreseeably involve three or more participants (i.e. the intention/knowledge that others will participate is part of…
14 Jul 2023

律政司司長對張浩輝及另四人

Citation

[2023] HKCA 877
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC277/2021

The Court held that service of the case-stated documents did not comply with statutory requirements for certain absent defendants and therefore the appeal as to those defendants could not proceed; on the merits the regional court judge erred in law in his approach to conspiracy (a two-person agreement can constitute conspiracy to participate in a riot/unlawful assembly if the parties intended or knew the requisite participation of others) and materially mis-evaluated and fragmented contextual evidence rather than assessing it holistically, such that acquittals of several defendants were perve…
29 Mar 2022

TUNG WOON HING CANDICE AND OTHERS v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 826
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA18/2019

The Presiding Officer correctly applied the law on estoppel by convention and on the evidence there was no clear and unequivocal common assumption that retirees would be entitled to the 2017 ex-gratia payment; the distinction between year-end bonus and targeted 2017 ex-gratia payment, together with discretionary guidelines and disclaimers, supported the factual finding of no common assumption and the appeal is dismissed.
11 Aug 2021

MULAKH-RAJ v. BALAJI GROUP LTD t/a T/A TULSI INDIAN RESTAURANT

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2334
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA8/2021

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the Claimant's grounds are challenges to the Tribunal's factual findings and credibility assessments, not errors of law; the Tribunal's findings were supported by evidence and the duty to investigate was exercised within its discretion, so there is no reasonable prospect of success on a legal ground.
30 Jul 2021

HANTEC INVESTMENT LTD v. LI YAU MAN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1089
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP92/2021

The Tribunal's factual findings that clause 3 did not create an option to renew and that there was no common assumption or conduct amounting to estoppel by convention were open on the evidence, the Tenant's credibility findings were justified, and the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; accordingly leave to appeal and a stay of execution were refused.
4 Feb 2021

香港特別行政區訴羅炎達

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 288
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA217/2020

Convictions were upheld because the appellate court, on rehearing the evidence, found the trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments were supported by coherent witness testimony and were not perverse; however sentencing relied in part on an unstable inference that appellant knew the victim was a police officer, which affected the assessment of gravity, so the court reduced the sentence to reflect proper mitigation for age and clean record.