覃錫鴻 對 一田有限公司

覃錫鴻 對 一田有限公司

The application to admit further evidence was refused because the applicant failed the first Ladd v Marshall requirement: the documents were in existence before the strike-out hearing and the applicant did not show she had exercised reasonable diligence to obtain or explain non-production at that hearing; therefore...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCA 914
Parties
Appellant: CHUM SEK HUNG CARMAN; Respondent: YATA LIMITED
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 May 2026
Case Number
CACV569/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Further Evidence Application on Appeal
Outcome
Further evidence application refused; further-evidence summons dated 23 May 2025 set aside; costs awarded to respondent.
Legal Topics
Admission of Further Evidence on Appeal, Ladd V Marshall Criteria, Jurisdiction (labour Tribunal), Striking Out, Costs Assessment
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Employment Law Contract Law Appellate Practice Admission of Further Evidence on Appeal Ladd V Marshall Criteria Jurisdiction (labour Tribunal) Striking Out +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHUM SEK HUNG CARMAN

Appellant

YATA LIMITED

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Further Evidence Application on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should admit further evidence on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the applicant satisfied the Ladd v Marshall three-part test (reasonable diligence, potential impact, prima facie credibility)
  3. 3 Whether the documents were newly discovered or available before the original hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The application to admit further evidence was refused because the applicant failed the first Ladd v Marshall requirement: the documents were in existence before the strike-out hearing and the applicant did not show she had exercised reasonable diligence to obtain or explain non-production at that hearing; therefore the summons for further evidence was dismissed and costs awarded to respondent.

Court Disposition

Further evidence application refused; further-evidence summons dated 23 May 2025 set aside; costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's further evidence summons dated 23 May 2025 is dismissed and set aside.
  • The plaintiff shall pay the respondent's costs of this application, to be summarily assessed at HK$8,000.