Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Witness credibility and adverse inference

  • 2 Feb 2026

    SKY KING MACHINERY ENGINEERING LTD v. CHINA HARBOUR ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 11
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV211/2023

    The Court of Appeal affirmed the Recorder: TP Wong authored the SF 2003 plans and the as-built installation in the course of employment so Plaintiff owns copyright; the installation qualifies as a 'work of architecture' under s 5 without a requirement of artistic quality; the SF 2005 plans (and consequentially the MS plans and Defendant's installation) reproduced substantial and qualitatively important parts of the SF 2003 plans/installation; the s 115 presumption of Gammon/Lambeth authorship was rebutted by evidence; therefore Defendant infringed Plaintiff's copyright.

    • Originality and authorship
    • Ownership of copyright
    • Infringement by substantial reproduction
    • Definition of artistic work / work of architecture
    • Statutory interpretation
    • Evidence and authenticity of documents

  • 11 Nov 2022

    TAI TONY CHAK LEUNG v. KE JUNXIANG

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 3420
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2651/2018

    On the balance of probabilities the Court found the advance was an investment agreement with a guaranteed minimum profit as evidenced by contemporaneous WeChat messages, the drafted and signed Declaration & Undertaking and parties' conduct; the D&U was not a sham; the defendant's loan defence was inherently improbable and not credible; accordingly the defendant breached the investment agreement and is liable to pay the outstanding sum of HK$33,880,074 plus interest and costs.

    • Investment agreement vs loan characterization
    • Sham document
    • Enforceability under money lenders ordinance s24
    • Dishonoured cheque
    • Witness credibility and adverse inference
    • Damages and interest

  • 8 Dec 2021

    TANG WING HUNG ALBERT FORMERLY KNOWN AS TANG SHUN TAI v. LAW CHAU FAT

    Citation
    [2021] HKCA 1856
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV556/2020

    The trial judge accepted the defendant's account and contemporaneous documentary evidence that the CASP was a sale and purchase and that the defendant paid HK$950,000; on that factual basis the plaintiff held only the legal title on trust for the defendant and specific performance to effect transfer was appropriate subject to government/lessor rights, payment of additional land premium and District Officer consent; the Court of Appeal found those factual findings were not plainly wrong and dismissed the appeal.

    • Resulting trust
    • Common intention constructive trust
    • Specific performance
    • Sale vs licence
    • Beneficial ownership
    • Land premium and restrictions on alienation

  • 9 Aug 2021

    CHAN SO MING 對 CHUEN KEE CONSTRUCTION CO LTD 及另一人

    Citation
    [2021] HKDC 946
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEC1868/2018

    Claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the alleged accident occurred or that her asserted injuries were caused by the alleged accident; the respondents' witnesses were found credible and claimant's account was riddled with unexplained contradictions and evidence of exaggeration and fabrication, justifying dismissal of the compensation claim and an adverse view of claimed incapacity; alternatively, if accident were accepted, the appropriate permanent loss is 0.5% and incapacity limited to four months as per court's assessment of medical evidence.

    • Employees' compensation ordinance (s9, s10, s10a, s18)
    • Causation and burden of proof
    • Witness credibility and adverse inference
    • Medical expert joint report
    • Assessment of loss of earning capacity
    • 'doctor‑shopping' and proof of sick leave

  • 28 Oct 2016

    CHAN KAI MAN v. BAIQIAN INTERNATIONAL HOLDING LTD

    Citation
    CHAN KAI MAN v. BAIQIAN INTERNATIONAL HOLDING LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEC1612/2012

    On evaluation of all indicia (advertisement and recruitment process, business card and branding, ownership and registration of the lorry, MPF application naming BQIH, operational control in Hong Kong, witness credibility and failure of defendant to call key witness), the court found BQIH was Chan's employer; the accident occurred in the course of employment while unloading; BQIH breached its duty by failing to provide safe system, equipment or instruction and that breach caused the injury; appropriate statutory and common law damages were assessed accordingly.

    • Employer identification
    • Duty of care
    • Causation
    • Mpf contributions
    • Witness credibility and adverse inference
    • Assessment of damages

  • 28 Oct 2016

    CHAN KAI MAN v. BAIQIAN INTERNATIONAL HOLDING LTD

    Citation
    CHAN KAI MAN v. BAIQIAN INTERNATIONAL HOLDING LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI660/2013

    On a holistic assessment of evidential indicia (advertisement, business card, lorry ownership and livery, MPF application naming BQIH, operational control from Hong Kong offices, unreliable defence witnesses and failure to call key company director), BQIH was the employer; the accident occurred in the course of employment while performing loading/unloading duties imposed from July 2012; BQIH breached its duty of care by failing to provide safe systems, tools or training and is liable; EC and PI damages were assessed accordingly.

    • Employment status (employee v third-party employer)
    • Employer liability and duty of care
    • Employees' compensation ordinance s9 s10 s10a assessment
    • Mandatory provident fund compliance
    • Witness credibility and adverse inference
    • Causation and contributory negligence

  • 12 Aug 2011

    WONG NUEN KIU v. ZHU JINFEN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    WONG NUEN KIU v. ZHU JINFEN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA873/2007

    Ng's Account did not constitute a legally enforceable real account stated; contemporaneous IOU notes and other unrecorded liabilities owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff (totaling substantially more than the account credit) extinguished any claimed balance. The $500,000 loan was advanced for the 1st Defendant's purposes; Plaintiff, having paid as guarantor, is entitled to recover $556,800 with interest. Defendants' counterclaim based on Ng's Account is dismissed. The 1st Defendant is entitled to a modest rental account amount and an ongoing account of rents from 1 August 2010.

    • Account stated
    • Set off
    • Loan agreement
    • Guarantee / co‑surety
    • Charging order
    • Counterclaim