Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Surveillance evidence

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2025

LAI CHUN WAI v. SWIRE COCA-COLA LTD trading as SWIRE COCA-COLA HK

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1590
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI3699/2022

Master held that Dr Lam omitted to give opinion on whether the P's condition was worsened by the Subsequent Incident and on the reasonableness of the post-Subsequent Incident sick leave, and that Dr Lam was not provided with the 11 April 2024 surveillance footage; fairness and utility require a limited supplemental joint expert report addressing specified questions, but oral evidence from the single joint expert is unnecessary and was refused.
12 Dec 2024

CHAN SAU CHEUNG v. CHI WO CONTRACTORS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2146
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI3003/2020

The judge found the Plaintiff's account was contradicted by contemporaneous accident and medical records and surveillance evidence, that causation and liability were not established and that Plaintiff had already received greater employee's compensation than any liability assessed; accordingly the costs order nisi was properly varied to award party-party costs to 29 December 2023 and indemnity costs thereafter with enhanced interest at 5% above judgment rate, and the Plaintiff's applications for leave to appeal and stay were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
27 Jun 2024

香港特別行政區訴陳芳

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2666
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA237/2023

On rehearing the court found the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and credibility: the CCTV footage, although not showing the precise assault moment, materially accorded with the complainant's account; the trial judge reasonably rejected the appellant's account as inconsistent with the footage and circumstances; there was no credible evidence of fabrication; the prosecution proved common assault beyond reasonable doubt; appeal dismissed.
20 Feb 2024

鍾玉珍對嘉頓有限公司

Citation

[2024] HKDC 260
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2301/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge’s findings on causation and on the absence of deliberate feigning were supported by detailed analysis of medical records, two surveillance periods and expert reports; many alleged errors were mere re‑argument of trial facts or novel fact‑sensitive points raised for the first time on appeal; selective use of surveillance material by defendant or its experts did not establish that the trial judge’s factual conclusions were plainly wrong; the quantum assessments and apportion…
9 Jan 2024

CHENG SAI WANG v. HONG KONG PEARL LOGISTICS COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 50
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1516/2022

Court accepted claimant's factual evidence and monthly earnings of HK$29,000; treated Board certificate of 5% loss of earning capacity as conclusive and awarded s.9 compensation HK$139,200. Exercising discretion under s.10(5) the court extended temporary incapacity to full 36 months and assessed s.10 compensation net at HK$749,400 after accounting for earnings during sick leave and prior lump sum payments. s.10A medical expenses awarded HK$5,463. For DCPI action the court preferred Dr. Hung's opinions over Dr. Ko regarding impairment and sick leave, assessed PSLA at HK$350,000, pre-trial loss…
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…
13 May 2022

CHAN CHUN LONG SUNNY v. EGL TOURS CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 386
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI3307/2019

Applying the joint medical evidence, surveillance footage and credibility findings the court assessed PSLA at HKD 400,000 (injuries slightly more serious than some cited authorities but less than others), accepted pre-trial loss of earnings and MPF at HKD 180,126.50 (on medical opinion that sick leave to 31 July 2019 was sufficient), awarded loss of earning capacity HKD 50,000 (recognised a real risk to the temporary part‑time job and a measurable labour‑market disadvantage), allowed special damages HKD 10,600 (after disallowing largely reimbursed or undocumented items), set off employees co…
31 Jan 2022

THAPA HARI BAHADUR v. PARAMOUNT ENGINEERING & MANPOWER AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 334
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI408/2016

Defendants liable for the first accident (barotrauma) but injuries were trivial and produced minimal damages; Defendants not liable for the second accident because they had implemented a reasonable system of work (training and mandatory daily health questionnaire) and the plaintiff voluntarily completed the questionnaire; plaintiff's evidence was found largely incredible and dishonest, his alleged chronic multi-joint and psychiatric injuries were not causally established, the claim is dismissed and defendants entitled to indemnity costs with certificates for two counsel; judgment to be notifi…
31 May 2021

TSE LAI SING v. TUNG WAH GROUP OF HOSPITALS

Citation

[2021] HKDC 643
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1754/2016

Court found applicant had exaggerated physical and psychiatric complaints, preferred respondent's experts on extent of permanent impairment, assessed orthopaedic permanent loss at 2% and psychiatric permanent loss at 0%, endorsed six months' sick leave, and calculated compensation accordingly; Board's 4% figure was not binding given s18 appeal and court started afresh on evidence.
13 Nov 2019

AU YEUNG MUI FAN v. FOOD CONCEPT CO. (sued as a firm)

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1531
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2732/2017

The plaintiff's subjective complaints were disbelieved on the basis of surveillance and inconsistency in clinical presentations; objective medical evidence supported only a minor soft tissue injury (buttock/low back contusion, possible minor neck sprain) with a good prognosis; damages were assessed at HK$170,260 and after crediting the HK$300,000 Employees' Compensation settlement no sum was payable by the defendant; costs ordered against the plaintiff on a costs nisi basis.