Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rehearing

Legal area

Court

17 Mar 2026

SYED IMTAZ UDDIN AHMED v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 454
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL600/2021

Leave for judicial review was refused because the Board's Decision was supported by adequate reasons and evidence, there was no demonstrated legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the applicant failed to identify grounds or produce credible evidence for new allegations, rendering the challenge not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
8 Jul 2025

SHABBIR MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2880
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL109/2020

The Board was legally wrong to dismiss the appeal without rehearing or receiving additional evidence and to rely on res judicata; there was procedural unfairness in failing to afford an oral hearing despite the applicant's request and circumstances; the short delay in filing was excused and an extension was granted and leave to apply for judicial review allowed as the application was reasonably arguable.
21 Mar 2025

蘇書幼對律政司及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKCA 284
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV125/2024

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal lacked any objective basis and did not raise any issue of general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap.484; there were no grounds for rehearing or further public hearing; the notice of motion was revoked and costs were awarded and summarily assessed at HK$6,900.
9 Jul 2024

HKSAR v. MABIALA, DONDIA KARL

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2698
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA406/2023

On rehearing the judge found the prosecution witnesses' accounts consistent on the central facts, discrepancies were immaterial given chaotic circumstances and supported by medical evidence; the magistrate's credibility findings were entitled to deference; guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt; appeal dismissed.
22 May 2024

香港特別行政區訴李錦波

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1895
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA161/2023

在重審全部證據（包括相片、草圖及各方供述）後，法庭接納獨立路人PW3的目擊證供為關鍵事實，認為上訴人在從西寧街駛出域多利道時未有作出足夠、合理的觀察與謹慎，故在未能確保安全的情況下駛出致兩車相撞，且即使對方可能有不足亦不能構成上訴人的有效抗辯；綜合證據已在毫無合理疑點下證明控罪，維持定罪。
10 May 2024

香港特別行政區訴何偉強

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1667
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA375/2022

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge properly accepted the independent eyewitnesses and the appellant's contemporaneous admissions; the fresh photographs were irrelevant or post‑dated the incident and lacked explanation; credibility findings were reasonably open on the evidence; consequently the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
15 Sept 2021

CHONG CHI KI PIERRE v. GLORY SKY PRECIOUS METALS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1175
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1530/2019

[2021] HKDC 1175
28 Sept 2020

香港特別行政區訴唐婉衡

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2454
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA106/2019

The trial judge rightly rejected the defence expert's diagnosis as lacking sufficient foundation and relying on inadmissible hearsay and untested statements; the police evidence and CCTV were credible and established dishonest intent beyond reasonable doubt; alternative explanations did not meet the required inherent probability standard; therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal fails.
12 Apr 2019

香港特別行政區訴蔡黎平

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 948
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA504/2018

The court held the conviction was unsafe because the touching could have been accidental in a crowded station and the leering smile was a subjective inference insufficient to establish sexual intent beyond reasonable doubt; the trial judge's adverse credibility findings did not justify upholding the conviction in all circumstances.
11 Dec 2018

DHESSI IVINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2209
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL959/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to present any reasonably arguable ground of unlawful, unreasonable or unfair decision‑making; the Adjudicator conducted a fair rehearing, assessed evidence appropriately, and his conclusions were open to him, so there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.