Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to appeal procedure

Legal area

Court

30 Jan 2026

TKW v. CYKJ AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 96
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP216/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the application lacked a reasonable prospect of success and the applicant failed to follow the required first‑instance procedure; on the merits the permanent stay was properly made as the Hong Kong wardship proceedings would duplicate advanced Australian proceedings and Australia was the clearly and distinctly more appropriate forum for determining custody, care and control of the children, rendering continuation of the OS inappropriate.
28 Feb 2025

HKSAR v. CHAN SAI PIU

Citation

[2025] HKCA 228
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC196/2024

The judge was entitled to enhance the starting point for sentence based on the applicant's role and culpability as indicated by the drugs, telephones and substantial unexplained cash found together in the vehicle; offences committed while on bail and trafficking in two different drugs were proper aggravating factors; the sentence of 38 months was within the appropriate range and there were no reasonably arguable grounds to grant leave to appeal against sentence.
28 Nov 2023

COOMBER, PETER JOHN v. LAU YIN HA, EVA (EVA LAU) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1673
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3416/2022

The application to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed because the Leung Kwok Hung public interest litigation principle does not apply to these strike-out proceedings; even if it were relevant, it does not override the court's broad discretion which must consider merits and likelihood of private gain; the Plaintiff's claims lacked merit and he could not show no private interest, and he failed to follow correct procedural steps, therefore the costs order nisi for indemnity costs is upheld and additional indemnity costs for the variation application are awarded.
16 Dec 2022

HKSAR v. MEREDITH GERALD SYDNEY

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1877
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC67/2021

The judge properly assessed the totality of the evidence (including WhatsApp messages admitted as facts) and correctly applied the Harjani test: a reasonable person sharing the applicant's knowledge would have been bound to believe the monies were proceeds of an indictable offence; no reasonably arguable ground to disturb conviction or sentence; leave to appeal refused.
5 Oct 2022

HKSAR v. AMIR AFTAB

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1495
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC12/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of appeal or any material error or irregularity on the trial record; the judge\'s summing-up was comprehensive and lawful, the child\'s recorded and forensic evidence supported the conviction, and the defence had elected not to call evidence after advice.
7 Jan 2022

HKSAR v. LAU KA CHUN

Citation

[2022] HKCA 65
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC55/2021

The applicant's leave application was dismissed because he confirmed abandonment and the appeal was patently devoid of merit; the court ordered 4 weeks loss of time for failing to file a formal notice of abandonment and for cavalier conduct; the original sentence of 4 years and 2 months imprisonment was upheld as appropriate given multiplicity of offences, substantial stolen value and damage caused, and proper application of guilty plea reduction and totality principles.
1 Aug 2018

CHOY PO CHUN AND ANOTHER v. AU WING LUN

Citation

[2018] HKCA 403
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV177/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions raised were either case‑specific or not of general or public importance, the Court of Appeal identified that the trial judge omitted to make express findings on the second and third Banks criteria but on the existing evidence no adequate basis existed to infer those criteria were satisfied, and the defendant's notice of motion failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1; accordingly there was no proper basis to grant leave and costs were awarded against the applicant.
18 May 2018

MAEDA KENSETSU KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA also known as MAEDA CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. BAUER HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1057
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT35/2016

The Measurement Rules, read in their contractual and commercial context, should not be amended; M12C's 'measurable core' definition does not apply to M12D (M12C was directed to classification of Rock Class A and B only), and Category 1(d) rock does not fall within the definition of 'bedrock' for purposes of M12D; the Arbitrator's re‑writing of the MRs to treat 1(d) as bedrock was incorrect but importing RQD30 into M12D was impractical and contrary to commercial sense.
11 Nov 2016

PCCW HKT TELEPHONE LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS

Citation

PCCW HKT TELEPHONE LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV208/2015

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicants failed to succinctly frame a question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) CFAO, the questions they later formulated were academic given the court's assumption in their favour regarding past surplus and the respondents' reliance on future projections, and the Court will not interfere where the decision-maker properly considered past and future financial information and no public law vice was shown.
11 Nov 2015

HKSAR v. LIU KIT MAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LIU KIT MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC216/2015

Judge found applicant knowingly concealed his 30% interest in Hong Kong Infix, was under statutory and corporate duties to disclose related party interests, acted dishonestly with intent to defraud by seeking to induce Kabu (via Mr Wong) to award design contracts to Hong Kong Infix, and that the concealment causally contributed to Kabu awarding those contracts; leave to appeal against conviction was refused.