Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adducing fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)

Legal area

Court

26 May 2025

HILL CONCEPT LTD v. YUEN YUN or formerly known as YUEN TIN YUN

Citation

[2025] HKCA 464
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP176/2024

Because the licence expired and completion under the SPA never occurred, and the defendant repudiated the SPA and failed to pay the balance, he had no legal basis to remain in possession; his allegations of misrepresentation and collusion were unsupported and he failed to satisfy the test for adducing fresh evidence, therefore summary judgment for vacant possession was justified and leave to appeal was refused.
12 Jan 2018

PRIMECREDIT LTD V. HON WAI KAN

Citation

[2018] HKDC 49
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2251/2011

Court declined to admit the fresh evidence (Evidence Summons) because Ladd v Marshall tests were not satisfied and awarded costs of that summons to the plaintiff; the extension of time for the appeal would have been granted but Hon must pay costs of the Time Summons; the DCMP appeal was not unmeritorious and, subject to extension of time, its costs should be borne by the plaintiff; the First and Second Joinder Summonses were unnecessary duplication and their costs are awarded to the plaintiff; all costs to be taxed if not agreed; certificate for counsel awarded for the specified costs orders.
12 Jan 2018

PRIMECREDIT LTD v. HON WAI KAN

Citation

[2018] HKDC 49
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2179/2015

The court refused the Evidence Summons as the new evidence failed the Ladd v Marshall test and awarded its costs against Hon; granted an extension of time in principle but ordered Hon to pay the costs of the Time Summons; found the DCMP appeal was not unmeritorious so its costs should be borne by Primecredit, subject to the extension; found the First and Second Joinder Summons were duplicative/unnecessary and awarded their costs to Primecredit; adjourned the Default Judgment/Third Joinder with costs reserved; counsel's certificate granted for the specified costs orders. These allocations refl…
12 Jan 2018

HON YUEN WAN v. HON WAI KAN

Citation

[2018] HKDC 49
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2167/2016

The court refused admission of the late evidence because Hon failed Ladd v Marshall's first limb (lack of reasonable diligence), so costs of the Evidence Summons were ordered against Hon; the DCMP appeal was not found wholly unmeritorious so its costs were to be borne by the plaintiff (subject to taxation) but Hon caused substantial delay in filing the notice of appeal so she must pay the costs of the application for extension of time; the First and Second Joinder Summonses were duplicative/unnecessary in light of the appeal and related applications and their costs were awarded to the plainti…
6 Aug 2012

MARK WIEMER v. HANG SENG BANK LTD

Citation

MARK WIEMER v. HANG SENG BANK LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV222/2011

The Court dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to comply with the time limits and the 'Unless' order requiring payment of $90,000 security, did not seek timely relief under Order 2 rule 4 nor provided any acceptable reason for delay or non‑compliance, had not shown a realistic prospect of success to justify exposing the respondent to the risk of an adverse costs order, and there was no basis to interfere with Kwan JA's exercise of discretion.

Hong Kong Case Law

HILL CONCEPT LTD v. YUEN YUN or formerly known as YUEN TIN YUN

PRIMECREDIT LTD V. HON WAI KAN

PRIMECREDIT LTD v. HON WAI KAN

HON YUEN WAN v. HON WAI KAN

MARK WIEMER v. HANG SENG BANK LTD