KENWELL LTD v. LIU KIN KWAN GARY AND ANOTHER

KENWELL LTD v. LIU KIN KWAN GARY AND ANOTHER

The Court dismissed the new evidence application because the documents existed before the hearing and could have been obtained with reasonable diligence (failing Ladd v Marshall Condition 1) and, even if admitted, would not probably have affected the result because they only supported at best a tenancy at will which ended on grant of the 2023 registered tenancy (failing Condition 2); consequently the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2026] HKCA 64
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Kenwell Limited; Defendant/applicants: Defendants
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 January 2026
Case Number
CAMP78/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and to Adduce New Evidence (court of Appeal) / Determination on Summons for Leave to Appeal and New Evidence (dismissed)
Outcome
Summons dismissed; leave to appeal refused; new evidence application dismissed; costs to Plaintiff awarded to be summarily assessed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Admission of New Evidence, Tenancy at Will, Part Performance, Estoppel, Case Management, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Property Landlord and Tenant Procedure Evidence Appeal Summary Judgment Leave to Appeal +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenwell Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Defendants

Defendant/applicants

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal and to Adduce New Evidence (court of Appeal) / Determination on Summons for Leave to Appeal and New Evidence (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s63A(2) DCO (reasonable prospect of success)
  2. 2 Whether new evidence should be admitted on appeal under Ladd v Marshall criteria
  3. 3 Whether a valid head tenancy existed or was renewed and the legal effect of absence of a deed

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the new evidence application because the documents existed before the hearing and could have been obtained with reasonable diligence (failing Ladd v Marshall Condition 1) and, even if admitted, would not probably have affected the result because they only supported at best a tenancy at will which ended on grant of the 2023 registered tenancy (failing Condition 2); consequently the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; leave to appeal refused; new evidence application dismissed; costs to Plaintiff awarded to be summarily assessed.

Orders

  • Dismiss the Summons (applications for leave to appeal and to adduce new evidence)
  • Costs to Plaintiff to be paid by Defendants, to be summarily assessed on paper