Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remittal for retrial

Legal area

Court

6 Feb 2026

KWAN SHIU YIN LOUIS as the Executor of the Estate of KWAN MAN CHOCK v. KWAN PO CHUEN PAULA

Citation

[2026] HKCA 182
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV50/2024

The trial judge erred in law and fact by treating alleged misrepresentations as the sole means of proving undue influence, disregarding alternative pleaded particulars invoking the evidential rebuttable presumption; the judge failed to consider whether a relationship of influence existed and whether the transfers were not readily explicable, so the matter must be remitted for retrial limited to undue influence.
10 Oct 2025

YAPE LIEZEL SUELTO v. LEE ALICE YU YING

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4736
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA7/2023

The Presiding Officer applied an incorrect evidential approach by seeking independent corroboration rather than weighing the competing factual accounts on the balance of probabilities and failing to make findings whether the Defendant's evidence was accepted; that error of law warranted allowing the appeal, setting aside the award and remitting the matter for retrial before another presiding officer.
23 Sept 2025

律政司司長訴何永恒

Citation

[2025] HKCA 801
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC123/2024

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge correctly found the CCTV exhibits authentic and sufficient to support conviction for count 2 after assessing working copies, original media and screenshots; the judge properly exercised discretion to exclude parts of the recorded interviews where there was a real risk of unfairness given the defendant's apparent wish to remain silent. However, the trial judge failed to adequately analyse the CCTV evidence on counts 3 and 4 and thus the acquittals were unsafe; the acquittals were set aside and those counts were remitted for trial before another Dis…
18 Jul 2025

LI MIJIANG v. HOILUNG GROUP INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3206
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA47/2024

The Deputy Adjudicator committed legal error by failing to investigate three material issues (identity of employer, potential illegality of the agreements due to immigration/work permission, and whether the Claimant resigned), such failures constituted a breach of the statutory duty to investigate under s20(3) LTO and warranted allowing the Defendant's appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remitting the case for retrial before a different adjudicator to address those issues.
22 May 2025

KWAN KWAI LIN AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG ON KI

Citation

[2025] HKCA 446
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV140/2022

Wong To Yick was distinguishable and its costs order was not appropriate here; taking an overall view of the parties' successes and failures, the Plaintiffs were entitled to 70% of their appeal costs; the Defendant's summons to vary the costs order nisi is dismissed; the Plaintiffs' claimed appeal costs were excessive and are summarily assessed at HK$60,000; Plaintiffs' own costs are to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.
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…
17 Oct 2023

香港特別行政區訴楊頌恩

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2697
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA128/2023

The Court upheld the conviction for theft because the prosecution proved dishonesty and appropriation beyond reasonable doubt on the totality of environment evidence, bank correspondence and inconsistent statements by the appellant which justified rejecting her defence. The Court allowed the appeal against conviction and sentence for possession of another's identity card because credible newly admitted evidence (the friend's confession and testimony availability) met the test for fresh evidence and could have undermined the prosecution's case; accordingly the conviction and sentence for that…
21 Sept 2021

CHAN SAN v. HANS LI, the person appointed to represent the estate of KAM SHUI MAN, the Deceased

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2838
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA840/2012

The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden to prove factual possession and animus possidendi for Area B because the evidential lacuna identified by the Court of Appeal — namely actual use of the road/footpath by others and its impact on exclusivity — was not filled at the remitted retrial; accordingly the claim on Area B is dismissed and the 1st defendant's counterclaim is dismissed for non-prosecution.
9 Aug 2021

香港特別行政區訴 N.H.M.

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2223
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA7/2021

Appellate court accepted PW1 identified the appellant as the person who threw the bottle and that the act was intended to challenge police, but held prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt the specific subjective mens rea required by s17B(2) (intent to incite others to breach public peace); amendment of the charge at appellate stage would be unfair and, after balancing public interest and prejudice to the appellant, the court declined to remit for retrial and quashed the conviction.
23 Oct 2019

XU DAZHONG v. NIPPON KAIJI KYOKAI t/a NIPPON KAIJI KYOKAI HONG KONG BRANCH

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2588
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA15/2018

The Tribunal's finding that the Subject Payments included EOY Payments was set aside because the Presiding Officer failed to give adequate reasons for that conclusion, relied improperly on the Defendant's witness without reconciling inconsistent earlier statements, and thus the question of the nature of the Subject Payments must be remitted to the Tribunal for retrial to be determined objectively in accordance with established principles of contractual interpretation and evidence.