Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal

  • 17 Mar 2026

    何漢標 對 陳靜芬高等法院原訟法庭法官

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 362
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV499/2024

    The application to admit the psychiatric report was refused because the applicant failed to show it could not with reasonable diligence have been obtained before the permission application (failing Ladd v Marshall limb 1) and failed to demonstrate the report would have had a material effect on the permission decision (failing limb 2); although the report was prima facie credible (limb 3 satisfied), there were no wholly exceptional circumstances or public interest to justify exercising the discretionary power to admit the evidence. The court therefore vacated the originating summonses for the…

    • Ladd v marshall test for new evidence
    • Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal
    • Amenability of judicial decisions to judicial review
    • Discretion to admit evidence in exceptional cases
    • Assessment of costs

  • 28 Nov 2025

    ONEPLATFORM WEALTH MANAGEMENT LTD v. CHIK KAR LUN KARISON

    Citation
    [2025] HKDC 2021
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ5157/2023

    The appeal was dismissed because the Defendant breached the Tomlin Schedule by failing to pay HK$250,000, thereby permitting the Plaintiff to enforce the Schedule and obtain judgment; the Defendant's new evidence on appeal would not likely affect the outcome and fails the special grounds test; allegations of wrongful advice by the Defendant's solicitors do not invalidate the Tomlin Schedule absent proof that the Plaintiff had knowledge of such impropriety; no triable issue was raised and a stay of enforcement was inappropriate.

    • Tomlin order
    • Clawback clause
    • Unless order
    • Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal
    • Setting aside settlements
    • Enforcement by summons

  • 31 Oct 2024

    譚兆尹 對 黎法欽及另一人

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 1799
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ635/2023

    The court refused permission to appeal because the application was academic — the plaintiff only appealed the revocation of the default summons while failing to appeal the order striking out the originating process — and there were no special circumstances to entertain the appeal; the fresh evidence was excluded at the leave stage because it did not satisfy Ladd v Marshall (no satisfactory explanation of prior diligence and no prospect of important impact).

    • Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal
    • Academic appeal
    • Validity of service
    • Summary assessment of costs

  • 26 Sept 2024

    香港平民屋宇有限公司 對 馮德樂

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 1588
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ39/2024

    The court exercised case management discretion: late or repeated legal aid applications do not automatically justify indefinite suspension; the statutory limited stay under the Legal Aid regime was exhausted and DCCJ 5505 should proceed; appeals under Order 58(1) are re-hearings de novo and the appellate judge is not bound by the hearing officer’s decision; fresh evidence is admissible only in respect of events after the hearing officer’s decision per the Ladd v Marshall test; settlement conference (FDR) jurisdiction is limited to the three permitted categories, and where parties do not conse…

    • Case management
    • Stay of proceedings
    • Settlement conference / fdr
    • Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal
    • Confidentiality of settlement process
    • Judicial review (pending applications)

  • 26 Sept 2024

    香港平民屋宇有限公司 對 關翠華

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 1588
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ5514/2023

    The court restored the legal proceedings in DCCJ 5505 and refused to prolong suspension for a second legal aid application where delay was unexplained and previous application had been refused and dismissed on appeal; the court ruled that fresh evidence filed on appeal was admissible only for events occurring after 22 August 2024 and otherwise excluded under Order 58(1)(4) and Ladd v Marshall; the court held that settlement conference/FDR judges have limited powers and, where one party withdraws consent to continue the FDR, remaining contested case management matters must be transferred to an…

    • Stay of proceedings
    • Adjournment
    • Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal
    • Confidential settlement/fdr limits
    • Costs
    • Consent orders

  • 26 Sept 2024

    香港平民屋宇有限公司 對 周德榮

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 1588
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ5613/2023

    The court ordered immediate restoration of DCCJ 5505/2023 (no further statutory suspension for a second, delayed legal aid application where prior application had been refused and appeal rights exhausted), declined to accept most fresh evidence except matters arising after 22 August 2024, held that settlement/FDR judges must not decide contested non-trial case-management applications (those should be transferred to another judge), terminated the remaining settlement conference process for the 11 unresolved cases and directed that those cases proceed to a case management hearing on 16 December…

    • Case management
    • Stay of proceedings
    • Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal
    • Confidentiality of settlement/fdr hearings
    • Abuse of process (repeated legal aid applications)

  • 14 May 2024

    HKSAR v. T. K. C.

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 1539
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA74/2024

    The magistrate’s decision was confirmed: the appellant failed to demonstrate that refusal to return his travel document would cause unreasonable hardship when balanced against substantial investigatory interests and a real risk of absconding; the second affirmation and its exhibits were not admitted as credible, and the magistrate’s refusal to return the passport and to allow leaving Hong Kong was upheld; appeal dismissed.

    • Surrender of travel document (s17a)
    • Applications for return of travel document (s17b/s17ba)
    • Unreasonable hardship
    • Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal
    • Risk of absconding
    • Investigatory interests vs individual hardship

  • 17 Jan 2024

    CHAN KUNG SHUN AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 75
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV644/2020

    The court found Cheng's affirmation introduced a new allegation of 'regular' widespread non-compliance that went beyond the applicants' case at first instance and therefore ordered that Cheng's Evidence be expunged; Chan's Evidence, being a direct response to the respondents' Implementation Evidence, was permitted but the respondents were granted leave to file evidence in reply within 28 days to preserve fairness and finality, with applicants precluded from further responses to that reply.

    • Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal
    • Implementation of police insignia policies
    • Article 3 hong kong bill of rights procedural limb
    • Leave to adduce evidence on appeal
    • Expunging evidence
    • Public interest

  • 15 Jan 2024

    MIDLAND REALTY (SHOPS II) LTD v. RICH FIELD INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 18
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ165/2021

    The amendment application was dismissed as plainly late, raising new factual pleas unsupported by admissible fresh evidence and causing unfairness; on the merits the Supplemental Agreement was held unenforceable for want of consideration (no consideration flowed from defendant to plaintiff) and the Master’s grant of summary judgment for the outstanding HK$500,000 was upheld.

    • Consideration
    • Summary judgment
    • Amendment of pleadings
    • Estoppel
    • Forbearance to sue
    • Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal

  • 4 Dec 2023

    CHAN YAT MAN v. TUNG PO (H.K.) TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISE LTD

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 1317
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV414/2022

    The appellant failed the first Ladd v Marshall condition because the smart phone allegedly containing the recording was obtained before trial and the recording could and should have been produced at trial; moreover the recording did not prove the pleaded meeting or agreed particulars and the appellant's explanations were unsatisfactory, therefore the fresh evidence was inadmissible and the summons to adduce it was dismissed.

    • Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal
    • Ladd v marshall criteria
    • Directors' meetings and corporate authorisation
    • Credibility of witnesses
    • Counterclaim for misapplied company funds
    • Costs assessment