Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Admissibility of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)

  • 13 Apr 2026

    RE MOHIDEEN BAWA MOHAMED RAFEEK alias MOHAMED NIYAS MOHAMED NAWSAR alias MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHAMMED LATHIF alias MOHAMMED IBRAHIM LATHIF

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 483
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV31/2026

    The appeal is dismissed because the Board gave detailed, reasoned findings rejecting the applicant's factual case, no arguable public law error or procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated against the Board or the Judge, and the purported fresh evidence would not have influenced the outcome and fails the Ladd v Marshall criteria.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture (cat) claim
    • Judicial review
    • Procedural fairness
    • Irrationality
    • Admissibility of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)

  • 13 Apr 2026

    RE ALAM CHIDDIQUE MOHAMMAD NUR

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 486
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV54/2026

    The appeal is dismissed because the applicant advanced no viable arguable ground to impugn the Judge’s refusal of leave; the Board’s adverse credibility and factual findings were open to it on the evidence and not shown to be legally defective; the proposed medical evidence was a new basis which would not change the outcome and did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria, so it was not admitted.

    • Non‑refoulement
    • Unified screening mechanism
    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Credibility findings
    • Admissibility of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)
    • Medical grounds under hong kong bill of rights (articles 2 and 3)

  • 6 Oct 2025

    EJIOBU LAZARUS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 4365
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL576/2020

    The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of public law error that would vitiate the TCAB decision, the COI authorship allegation and additional documents were unsubstantiated and inadmissible, and there was no acceptable explanation for the undue delay of over 22 months so as to justify an extension of time.

    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Undue delay and extension of time
    • Standard of judicial review (enhanced wednesbury)
    • Credibility assessment and weight of evidence
    • Country of origin information (coi)
    • Admissibility of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)

  • 30 Sept 2025

    BUTT MUHAMMAD ASIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 4162
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL1287/2020

    Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds of judicial review or to demonstrate procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality in the NRCPO decision after anxious scrutiny; the medical documents failed the Ladd v Marshall test and would not probably have affected the outcome.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Wednesbury unreasonableness
    • Risk assessment (torture, persecution, bor)
    • Procedural fairness
    • Admissibility of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)

  • 8 Sept 2025

    FAISAL OMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 3984
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL698/2020

    Leave dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success; careful scrutiny of the TCAB/NRCPO decision revealed no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality; the Board's factual findings on risk, state protection and credibility were within its province and supported by the evidence, so judicial review was not warranted.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture risk
    • Persecution
    • Hong kong bill of rights (articles 2 and 3)
    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Procedural fairness

  • 2 Sept 2025

    BEST EASE OPPORTUNITY II LTD v. GE YIYANG AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 3823
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA652/2024

    Appeals dismissed and Order 14 judgments affirmed: Defendants failed to establish any arguable triable defence of injurious conduct or economic duress; fresh evidence (Ge’s 2nd Affirmation) excluded because it failed Ladd v Marshall conditions (no satisfactory explanation for lateness and would not have influenced result); no evidence of bad faith or deliberate conduct by plaintiffs; costs awarded to plaintiffs on an indemnity basis with certificate for two counsel and summary assessment of HK$220,000 per appeal (total HK$660,000).

    • Personal guarantee enforcement
    • Order 14 summary judgment
    • Economic duress
    • Creditor injurious conduct
    • Admissibility of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)
    • Costs (indemnity basis)

  • 29 Oct 2024

    CHING CHUNG YIN SECINA in her capacity as the executrix of the estate of CHING CHI SAU, deceased v. CHING CHUNG KAM ANDREW in his capacity as the executor of the estate of CHING CHI SAU, deceased

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 1738
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2920/2023

    Appeal allowed in part: the court held that the interest loss claim is not an abuse of process and restored those parts of the Statement of Claim concerning interest loss because prior Order 85 proceedings and the High Court declaration did not preclude a separate equitable compensation claim arising before and after the declaration; however the Benevolent Fund-related pleas were struck out as barred by issue estoppel because the substantive questions relating to the Benevolent Fund had been fully litigated and determined by Wilson Chan J in HCMP 2339/2020. Limited fresh evidence (specified p…

    • Abuse of process (henderson v henderson)
    • Issue estoppel
    • Order 85 administration proceedings
    • Executor duties
    • Benevolent fund (beneficiary trust)
    • Interest loss claim

  • 10 Oct 2024

    有關LEUNG OI FONG的事宜

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 2705
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB4409/2021

    The s.33(1) application was dismissed because the matters relied on by the debtor had already been fully considered and rejected on appeal; the appeal judgment is final and binding and did not identify any legal error by the trial judge or material mistake of fact; the debtor has not paid or secured the proved debts; accordingly neither s.33(1)(a) nor s.33(1)(b) is satisfied and the summons must be dismissed.

    • Setting aside bankruptcy order (s.33)
    • Res judicata/finality of appeals
    • Admissibility of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)
    • Official receiver functions (s.83)

  • 30 Sept 2024

    LI YIZHOU v. CHINA ZENITH CHEMICAL GROUP LTD

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 2616
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1790/2023

    The Stay Summons was dismissed because the defendant failed to show good reasons to justify a stay: the purported new evidence did not satisfy Ladd v Marshall requirements and was not credible or diligently sought; the defendant advanced no bona fide triable defence to the summary judgment on the bond; there was no credible risk that execution would render the appeal nugatory or cause serious deleterious effect despite winding-up proceedings; the balance of justice favoured refusal of a stay and the defendant could have secured its position by offering to pay the judgment sum into court.

    • Stay of execution pending appeal
    • Summary judgment
    • Admissibility of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)
    • Delivery of deed
    • Winding-up petition
    • Costs assessment

  • 31 Jul 2024

    ASIA CREDIT COMPANY LTD v. CS ASIA OPPORTUNITIES MASTER FUND

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 2005
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT21/2022

    Dominick 3rd did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall requirements and was not admissible; the Master properly exercised jurisdiction in directing pre-examination discovery and oral examination under O 48 r 1 given the Respondent's prior notice and choice not to file evidence; anticipated difficulties about beneficial ownership or confidentiality do not invalidate the Order and can be addressed at disclosure or by claim of privilege; appeal dismissed.

    • Order 48 examinations
    • Charging order
    • Enforcement of arbitral award
    • Admissibility of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)
    • Disclosure and discovery
    • Substituted service