Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of late evidence

Legal area

Court

18 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4290
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1285/2020

The Board's Decision of 28 April 2020 contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Applicant failed to present grounds or new admissible evidence to rebut prior findings of dishonesty or to show a reasonably arguable BOR2 risk with realistic prospects of success; consequently leave to apply for judicial review is refused and the originating Form 86 is to be amended to name the Board as Putative Respondent and the Director as Putative Interested Party.
7 Jul 2025

Q AQUA LTD 對 WAI YIU PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING LTD及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1114
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5839/2021

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved that the repairs were necessitated by the collision and that the quoted and paid repair cost of HKD259,766 was reasonable and necessary; the court excluded the late-notified notarised document for unfairness and non-compliance; accordingly the defendants (first and second) are jointly and severally liable to pay HKD259,766 plus interest and assessed costs of HKD53,100.
18 Nov 2024

RE HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION (ASIA) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3310
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW316/2018

Payments totalling HK$11,295,350 made by the Respondent to Cogent Spring after presentation of the winding up petition were, in substance, dispositions of the Company's property within s182 CWUO and therefore void; the court has jurisdiction to make an immediate payment order to correct a wrongful disposition where appropriate; agency/rationales pleaded could not rebut the substance that the Company's free assets were dissipated to a third party and the Respondent failed to show entitlement to a validating order or applicable mutual insolvency set-off, so repayment to the liquidators was orde…
31 May 2024

FUNG SHING CHUNG v. CHOI KING HUNG

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1508
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2860/2018

The Defendant failed to demonstrate strong or arguable grounds of appeal of law; the challenges are principally factual or discretionary and do not meet the high appellate thresholds; there is insufficient evidence that the Plaintiff will transfer funds out of jurisdiction to render the appeal nugatory; accordingly there is no basis to stay execution and the summons is dismissed, with discrete handling of garnishee applications (HSBC discharged, Henik to proceed).
5 Apr 2024

黎亦文對黎世業祖司理黎清雲

Citation

[2024] HKDC 551
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2783/2021

Plaintiff failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the relevant family custom was that rental income should be redistributed equally among the current descendants; documentary evidence and long practice supported the defendant's claimed succession method (including 1965 succession application and 1967 Land Registry entry and continuous distribution practice), therefore the established custom remained as applied by the defendant and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
26 Jan 2024

YANG GUOLIANG 對 KO KA HUNG及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 93
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ914/2019

Court accepted plaintiff's evidence and expert findings that the source of seepage to 1F was defects in the 2F bathroom (floor and shower enclosure/wall waterproofing and associated drainage/soil pipes); rejected the defendants' inter-floor (3F) and environmental condensation theories as unsupported; defendants breached the Deed of Mutual Covenant and s34H, and were liable in nuisance and negligence; plaintiff awarded special and general damages and a mandatory injunction ordering specified remedial works within a fixed period and costs.
12 Jan 2024

LAU KIN SHUN FREEMAN, Administrator of estate of LAU WAI CHAU, deceased v. MA WAH YAN and WONG CHI LEUNG, co-administrators of the estate of LAU LEUNG CHAU, deceased AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 175
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3924/1995

The administrator established that existing and reasonably anticipated liabilities and costs (aggregating approx. $69.27m on the court's assessment) exceed the available compensation (~$45.4m). Given that insufficiency of cash creates a real risk of failing to meet debts and contingent liabilities and there was no adequate undertaking or security, it was not appropriate to exercise the court's discretion to order interim distribution; accordingly the summonses for distribution were dismissed and the late affidavit was disallowed.
12 Jan 2024

LAU KIN SHUN FREEMAN, Administrator of estate of LAU WAI CHAU, deceased v. The estate of LAU YU HI, deceased AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 175
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3209/1996

The summonses for interim distribution were dismissed because a prudent assessment of the estate's existing and contingent liabilities (estimated at approximately HKD 69.27 million) exceeded the available compensation (approximately HKD 45.4 million), such that releasing funds would risk leaving the estate unable to meet liabilities; the late affirmation was not admitted for failure to show special grounds; a costs order nisi was made against the applicants.
10 Nov 2023

RE SILVER BASE (HOLDINGS) LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2916
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW20/2023

The summons to admit late evidence (Liang 4th and the revised Midland report) was dismissed for inordinate and unexplained delay with indemnity costs; the Company failed to prove repayment because its repayment records and vouchers were unreliable and inconsistent; the Midland report without comparables lacked probative value and none of the valuations conclusively showed the Property would command the Debt amount on the market; the Company did not secure the Debt to the reasonable satisfaction of the creditor and failed to show a bona fide defence; accordingly the court exercised its discret…
31 Mar 2023

CHENG KA YAN AND OTHERS v. GRAND XI INVESTMENTS PTE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 886
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1607/2022

On the evidence the court found no credible contemporaneous support for the plaintiffs' core allegations (no reliable disclosure of the OMCL indebtedness pre-contract, no credible collateral non-enforcement agreement, and no proven deliberate withholding of consents by the lender). Grand XI had a solid basis for serving default notices and appointing receivers; the plaintiffs had obstructed receivers and failed to present a serious issue to be tried. Accordingly the receivers' application was allowed and leave granted to file the draft affirmations de bene esse.