Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admission of documentary evidence

Legal area

Court

20 Mar 2025

THE HONG KONG SETTLERS HOUSING CORPORATION LTD v. LEE WAI LAN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 465
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ47/2024

Default judgment was irregularly entered because service by insertion into the letter box lacked a reasonably held belief that the writ would come to the defendant's knowledge within seven days given evidence that the defendant no longer occupied the flat and that the plaintiff had been informed the letter box was occupied by others; alternatively, the defendant demonstrated a defence with a real prospect of success based on pending public law challenges; leave was granted to adduce limited documentary evidence (1999 Application); joinder of Yung was refused because he has no independent prop…
16 Nov 2017

WINPO DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG KAR FU AND OTHERS

Citation

WINPO DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG KAR FU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP32/2017

The appellate court refused leave because the judge had properly balanced relevance, explanation for late production and minimal prejudice, reserved the weight of the documents, and the plaintiffs failed to show the judge had acted plainly wrongly or irrationally; therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success under s14AA and no other reason in the interests of justice to hear the appeal.
3 Apr 2014

TSAN LUK YUK YIN AND OTHERS v. THE SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND WORKS

Citation

TSAN LUK YUK YIN AND OTHERS v. THE SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND WORKS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR3/2005

The application to adduce the Bundle was refused because it was produced at a late stage without adequate justification, would raise new issues requiring investigation, would unfairly prejudice the applicant by depriving them of the opportunity to analyse the transactions and would likely require an adjournment contrary to case management objectives; moreover cross-examination on the topic was available without the Bundle so no injustice to the respondent arose from refusal.
9 Nov 2005

CHEUNG WING FAI v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

CHEUNG WING FAI v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV129/2005

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the disciplinary decisions because the appropriate tribunal and subsequent decision‑makers unfairly disregarded an agreed documentary statement (the applicant's brother's statement) without warning or giving the applicant an opportunity to respond; that procedural unfairness required certiorari, and the alleged cure by later proceedings did not apply because the Deputy Commissioner perpetuated the error.
28 Jun 2005

CHEUK FAN MING v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEUK FAN MING v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL134/2004

The court held the disciplinary process was overall fair and the applicant suffered no material prejudice from the inability to cross-examine absent witnesses; the Commissioner lawfully relied on evidence already before the tribunal (including the ICAC interview) in assessing culpability and penalty; the Secretary was not required to give reasons in the circumstances; nondisclosure of the final minute was an error but caused no material prejudice; therefore judicial review relief was refused and the decision to retire the applicant with deferred pension was upheld.
8 Jan 2002

HKSAR v. CHAU CHUNG CHUEN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAU CHUNG CHUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1073/2001

The magistrate's acceptance of the victim's evidence and rejection of the appellant's evidence was a permissible credibility finding; the bank records were relevant to the timing of events and did not cause prejudice because subsequent withdrawals were by unknown persons; accordingly the appellate court will not disturb the conviction and the appeal is dismissed.
5 Feb 1999

HKSAR v. LUI KIN HONG, JERRY

Citation

HKSAR v. LUI KIN HONG, JERRY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC378/1998

The court was satisfied that crucial documentary evidence was wrongly admitted under section 22 of the Evidence Ordinance and that this error rendered the conviction unsafe, warranting quashing of the conviction.
22 Aug 1995

R. v. KEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

R. v. KEUNG KIN CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA492/1995

Because the prosecution relied on a single police witness whose evidence was materially undermined by an apparent exaggeration (claiming he almost mounted a pavement that did not exist), the officer's credibility was cast into doubt and the conviction based solely on that evidence was unsafe; therefore the appeal is allowed and the conviction quashed.