Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Translation of evidence

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2025

LIN HO PIN AND OTHERS v. JAMES TING-YEH YANG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4875
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA730/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success under s.14AA(4); the impugned issues were fact-sensitive with contested contemporaneous material (eg WhatsApp, partial redemption) and therefore not suitable for summary determination by strike out, and the judge's refusal to decide accrual of loss as a preliminary point was a legitimate exercise of discretion within the generous ambit for reasonable disagreement.
20 Aug 2025

HKSAR v. FADONOUGBO FREJUS LEZIN

Citation

[2025] HKCA 524
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC121/2022

The Court proceeded on the basis it had jurisdiction in exceptional cases to consider complaints about the discharge of an earlier jury but concluded that, on the facts, the trial judge’s discharge did not produce unfairness to the appellant and did not render the subsequent conviction unsafe; therefore the conviction stands. Separately, applying the new sentencing guideline, the Court substituted the original sentence with 19 years and 3 months' imprisonment.
6 Oct 2023

莊裕安 v. 特首李家超 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1119
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV151/2023

The summons was dismissed because the applicant failed to particularize any sufficient basis for a non-Chinese bench, failed to show that an amicus was required given the issues were not complicated, and translation was unnecessary as bilingual Judges will hear the appeal.
27 Sept 2023

莊裕安 v. 律政司司長林定國

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2492
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1243/2023

The Summons was dismissed because the court found the appointment of amicus unnecessary as the issues are not complicated, translation unnecessary because the hearing judge is bilingual, and joinder of the third party premature before leave is granted.
4 Sept 2023

SARU GAMAN SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2262
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1072/2023

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent claim because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of any significant change of circumstances as required by s37ZO, the new material did not give a realistic prospect of success when considered with prior material, previous adverse findings of low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation remained authoritative, and the Applicant had been afforded ample opportunity and representation but did not supply the required evidence; consequently leave for judicial review was refused and an RPO wa…
27 Jun 2018

HKSAR v. CHAN KA CHUN

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 31
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC1/2018

Where material mistranslations of a defendant's evidence caused the trial judge to make adverse and inaccurate comments in her summing-up on the central issue of the defendant's credibility and knowledge, the summing-up was unbalanced and unfair, amounting to substantial and grave injustice; conviction must be quashed and a retrial ordered.
18 Oct 2017

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 319
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC41/2016

After examination of the original decoded translations and the schedule of omissions, the judge concluded the omitted or redacted parts on their face either were not relevant to issues in the case or would reveal police surveillance tactics or identities of officers not relevant to the proceedings, and therefore the non-disclosure of those parts was justified in the circumstances.
17 Mar 2011

SINGH CHAMKAUR v. RICHARD ETHAN LATKER t/a SINO INDIAN TRADE ENTERPRISES

Citation

SINGH CHAMKAUR v. RICHARD ETHAN LATKER t/a SINO INDIAN TRADE ENTERPRISES
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV270/2009

The applications were dismissed because the asserted new evidence did not constitute matters occurring after the judgment nor did it amount to prima facie evidence of fraud, the proposed witness was available and could have been called with reasonable diligence at trial, and the requirements for leave to appeal under section 22 Cap. 484 were not met; accordingly leave to appeal and the stay were refused and costs were awarded.
1 Feb 2007

WONG FUNG LUI v. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING

Citation

WONG FUNG LUI v. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1/2006

The applicant’s hearing bundles did not comply with PD SL3 in material respects, caused unnecessary revision, correspondence and extra work for the Commissioner and DOJ, and the resulting wasted costs are properly chargeable to the applicant; accordingly the costs order nisi is varied to exclude bundle-preparation costs from the Commissioner’s liability and to require the applicant to pay the Commissioner’s wasted costs and the costs of the variation application.
21 Jun 2005

HKSAR v. HSU HENRY

Citation

HKSAR v. HSU HENRY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA447/2005

The certified translation of the appellant's police statement was available but not produced; the appellant was misled into proceeding without it and thus could not present his defence or have it properly evaluated by the learned magistrate; in a one‑against‑one credibility dispute that procedural irregularity made the conviction unsafe, so the appeal is allowed, conviction quashed and sentence set aside.