Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of affidavits

Legal area

Court

9 Jan 2026

李明治及另十人對秦錦釗及另三人

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 196
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2138/2019

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success, largely repeated points already considered and rejected by the trial judge, and there was no other compelling reason to permit an appeal; the judge properly considered the affidavit evidence, correctly applied applicable authorities (including persuasive foreign common law), and exercised judicial discretion lawfully on injunction and substitute service matters.
19 Nov 2024

FRIENDSHIP SHIPPING AND TRADING S.A. v. I.V.L. DHUNSERI POLYESTER COMPANY S. A. E.

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3180
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT66/2024

The originating summons was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to support it with admissible sworn and filed evidence; the Court would not admit unfiled or unsworn affidavits de bene esse in these circumstances. Alternatively, even assuming arguendo a prima facie Hong Kong arbitration clause existed, an anti-suit injunction was refused on equitable grounds because of undue delay, the advanced stage of proceedings in Egypt, wasted resources and the plaintiff’s lack of clean hands in its dealings with this Court.
17 Oct 2022

劉互慈對張永輝（張偉賢之遺產執行人）

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1156
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2990/2020

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the defendant misread the earlier judgment, the evidence and affidavits supported the plaintiff's entitlement on the relevant loan items, procedural history did not reveal unfairness, and the legal arguments advanced by the defendant did not establish errors of law or fact warranting leave to appeal.
1 Jun 2018

已故鄧劍如的遺產管理人鄧浩泓對鄧群德

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1208
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1254/2017

The court refused the plaintiff's application for summary disposal because there are important, contested factual issues about whether the assets listed in the defendant's 2016 affidavit are part of the deceased's estate; those issues justify a hearing with a mix of oral evidence and affidavits rather than summary procedure, and the earlier judgment did not determine the precise scope of the estate so res judicata does not bar the dispute.
5 Feb 2018

吳大国對万洲国际有限公司

Citation

[2018] HKDC 141
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5830/2016

The amended statement of claim was struck out because the pleaded defendant is not the entity that published the crowdfunding offer; objective documentary evidence (company registration records and website/IP information) showed the offeror was Great Continents International Limited (Seychelles), a different legal person, so the claim against the named defendant disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous and an abuse of process; leave to amend was refused because the plaintiff had already been given an opportunity and misidentification of the defendant cannot be cured by amendm…
2 Apr 2015

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. SIT PAN JIT

Citation

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. SIT PAN JIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA382/2009

The court admitted the Lee Aff under its discretion in Order 38 rule 2 because the recordings and transcripts were already discovered, relevant and unchallenged as to authenticity, the affidavit was narrowly confined to explaining how dates were derived from DBS\' recording systems and numerical codes, cross-references corroborated the dates, and no prejudice to the defendant was shown; compliance with section 20 was not fatal to admitting the affidavit and section 20(4) supported admissibility of explanatory affidavits.
13 Apr 2000

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, HONG KONG BRANCH v. YENWIN INVESTMENTS LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, HONG KONG BRANCH v. YENWIN INVESTMENTS LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6014/1999

The plaintiff established a contractual and documentary basis (facility letter, undertaking and security agreement) and demonstrated a consistent course of dealing authorising debiting of interest from the bills account to the current account; the undertaking expressly permitted compound interest; the plaintiff's witness evidence and documents were accepted and the defendant failed to adduce oral evidence or successfully challenge calculations, therefore judgment for the plaintiff for the claimed principals and interest was entered.
23 Dec 1997

TOSHIBA HONG KONG LTD. v. FORMATIVE WAY CO. LTD. and Others

Citation

TOSHIBA HONG KONG LTD. v. FORMATIVE WAY CO. LTD. and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4472/1997

The Court held that contemporaneous documents, meetings, correspondence and the parties\' conduct established a genuine pre-existing trading debt and validly executed repayment agreement and guarantees; the Defendants\' allegations of a sham and lack of authority were inconsistent with the documentary record and appeared to be afterthoughts; no bona fide or fairly arguable defence was demonstrated and summary judgment was properly entered; the appeal was dismissed.
20 May 1997

R. v. LI KA KA and Another

Citation

R. v. LI KA KA and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA290/1997

The convictions were quashed because the prosecution relied on an affirmation that did not comply with section 9 of the Copyright Ordinance, leaving the essential element of subsisting copyright unproven; accordingly the convictions could not stand and, given the appellants' ages and period of detention, a retrial was refused.
22 Feb 1995

BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA and OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG and OTHERS

Citation

BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA and OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG and OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9302/1993

Cumulative special features — obtaining and maintaining an ex parte Mareva injunction based on miscalculated restraint, concealment of material facts and source of funds, repeated defaults and delays, wilful non-compliance with discovery orders and suppression or misleading of evidence — constituted an abuse of process and an affront to the court; those facts justified departing from ordinary party-and-party costs and ordering costs on an indemnity basis against all plaintiffs; Susan Johnson's affirmations excluded as inadmissible hearsay when used to establish plaintiffs' motives.