Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of new evidence

Legal area

Court

17 Mar 2026

RAJA AKAASH ILYAS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 322
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1240/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the Applicant failed to raise any viable ground to overturn the Judge's refusal of leave, no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown in the Board's decision, and the proposed new evidence did not meet the Ladd v Marshall criteria nor justify discretionary admission on appeal.
22 Jan 2026

徐學仲及另一人對符燕敏

Citation

[2026] HKDC 92
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4956/2014

The court allowed the 1‑day late application for leave to appeal, held the registrar's strike out order was incorrect because the defendant's contention that the alleged damage to the vertical soil stack affected only her unit meant her locus and right to sue was not plainly lacking, and therefore set aside the strike out order and permitted limited re‑amendment of pleadings to include specific factual paragraphs; fresh affidavits did not meet the Ladd v Marshall threshold and were struck out.
31 Oct 2025

RAFIQUE MOON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5185
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1999/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds; the Board's decision exhibited no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, its factual findings and conclusions on risk and state protection were open to the Board and not Wednesbury unreasonable, and materials not placed before the Board cannot be relied upon at the leave stage.
30 Oct 2025

CCMJ v. SSM formerly known as SKL

Citation

[2025] HKFC 177
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP67/2010

Leave to appeal refused because none of the six grounds demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success: the judge had considered the child’s needs and the father’s means (including prior appellate findings about the father's conduct), the father chose to expend funds on litigation rather than preserve means, the proposed new evidence failed Ladd v Marshall criteria and was excluded, and there were adequate reasons in the primary judgment. Costs awarded to respondent.
16 Sept 2025

ISLAM MD SAFIKUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4146
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL664/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant failed to identify any grounds in the Form 86, produced no admissible evidence of new circumstances, and the TCAB's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on risk and internal relocation fall squarely within the decision-maker's province and do not disclose procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality sufficient to found judicial review.
31 Jul 2025

MIA MILON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 625
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP54/2025

Dismissed the application for leave to appeal out of time because the applicant's delay was substantial with no good explanation, the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success, and the proposed new evidence did not meet the Ladd v Marshall conditions nor would it alter the outcome; accordingly no extension of time was justified.
7 Apr 2025

醫院管理局對邵國煒

Citation

[2025] HKCA 316
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP158/2024

The application for out-of-time leave was refused because the delay of over ten years was inordinate and unexplained, the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success since the medical opinions complied with statutory requirements and the District Judge committed no reviewable error, Part III decisions are administrative and largely not subject to appeal to this Court, and challenges to conditional release orders must be pursued before the Mental Health Review Tribunal; newly proffered evidence would not change these conclusions.
1 Aug 2022

楊天偉對香港房屋委員會及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1087
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV392/2020

The Court refused the applicant's motion for extension of time and his application for leave to appeal because (a) the one‑day delay was immaterial but did not justify extension in circumstances where the proposed grounds lack reasonable prospect of success, (b) the applicant failed to identify any question of general or public importance under s22(1)(b), (c) the Appeal Board's findings were supported by evidence and not perverse, and (d) the additional documents relied on by the applicant constituted fresh evidence not properly before the administrative decision and not admissible under esta…
19 Apr 2022

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF THE REGALIA v. WONG TAK YUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1020
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA16/2018

Appeal dismissed: no admissible evidence established pre‑existing Capital Equipment Fund so ground failed; AGM notice was sufficient because quantum of contribution was ancillary to establishment of the fund; although the 2016 budget did not comply strictly with DMC clause 13, that contractual failure did not trigger BMO Schedule 7(1)(3) consequence and did not render the fees invalid; consultation requirement under DMC satisfied by consultation before the committee and delegation to a taskforce did not vitiate consultation.
12 May 2021

TAYLAN MYRA FE OVIEDO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 515
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV316/2020

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484, relied on new material not before the judge (which is impermissible), advanced grounds that attack the Board's decision rather than demonstrating any public law error in the courts below, and failed to particularise any reasonably arguable public law case for the Court of Final Appeal.