Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admission of evidence

Legal area

Court

15 Aug 2024

KONG LAI WAN AND ANOTHER v. HO SHUI LUNG

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1331
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ482/2019

Liability was fixed by interlocutory judgment; the Court accepted the plaintiff's witness evidence and the unchallenged expert report for quantum; the Court excluded the defendant's late, unserved documents for lack of relevance and prejudice; awards were made adopting the expert's repair estimate (HK$49,354.90), allowing the 2017 invoice (HK$22,100), awarding limited sums for alternative accommodation and storage (total HK$15,000), limited replacement/repair items (HK$5,201) and HK$150,000 for distress, resulting in total damages of HK$241,655.90 plus interest and costs.
31 Aug 2023

CMBICDHAW INVESTMENTS LTD v. LI LEI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2176
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA905/2020

Relief from sanctions and an extension of time were granted in part because the proven breaches were technical or rectified, the late delivery was short and attributable to solicitor technical issues, discovery was not shown to be illusory, and proportionality required allowing the defendants to defend serious fraud allegations; consequently the court admitted Li 4th, extended time to comply and to apply for relief, conditioned relief on rectification within 28 days, ordered restoration of the Defence and dismissal of the 2nd Judgment Summons upon compliance.
21 Oct 2022

RE ZPMC-RED BOX ENERGY SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3256
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW368/2021

The court found no bona fide dispute on substantial grounds: evidence established ZPMC HK paid ICBC Shanghai as agent of the Petitioner such that the Company was enriched at the Petitioner's expense and the Petitioner was subrogated to ICBC Paris's rights (US$25,117,792.28 plus interest) resulting in a Debt of US$28,106,250.20; the Company failed to prove a genuine, serious cross-claim equal to or exceeding the Debt (derivative allegations were inadequately particularised and circular); the petition was not an abuse of process in circumstances where independent liquidation would benefit credi…
31 Aug 2022

ECHELLES RIFFIAUD S.A. v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2675
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1841/2011

The Disputed Parts were excluded because they contained impermissible expert opinion presented by a factual witness and the Plaintiff offered no cogent justification for the substantial delay in seeking to adduce the material shortly before trial; accordingly leave was refused and costs for the Evidence Summons were ordered against the Plaintiff.
11 Jun 2020

LEUNG SO HUNG SIEM v. CARSON WEN

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1079
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4036/2018

The petition succeeds because the three costs orders underpinning the First Statutory Demand are validly enforceable judgments and the debtor failed to demonstrate any fraud, collusion or miscarriage of justice or to substantiate a genuine, substantial crossclaim; late and irrelevant evidence filed after the hearing was excluded as abuse; amendment of the petition was permitted only to delete the incorrect phrase about the Second Statutory Demand, and the Second Statutory Demand could not be relied upon as it was outstanding when the petition was presented.
4 Sept 2019

香港特別行政區訴廖品鋒

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2144
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA322/2018

The court refused the certificate because the applicant's proposed grounds were factual credibility disputes rather than points of law of significant and general importance, they lacked reasonable arguability, and the application was severely delayed.
30 Nov 2018

RE KAYANI MUHAMMAD SALEEM

Citation

[2018] HKCA 903
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV117/2018

The notice of motion for leave to appeal was dismissed and the two-page Urdu document excluded because the applicant failed to explain its late production, could not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall test for fresh evidence, judicial review was not the proper vehicle for a new claim under s37ZO, and no question of great general or public importance was established to justify leave under s22(1)(b).
16 Nov 2017

REALRAY INVESTMENTS LTD v. YU PO CHI AND ANOTHER

Citation

REALRAY INVESTMENTS LTD v. YU PO CHI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP33/2017

The trial judge lawfully exercised case management discretion in admitting the late Electricity Bills because he accepted the late disclosure was an oversight, the bills were relevant and of minimal prejudice, the plaintiffs did not seek an adjournment to investigate authenticity, and the judge properly reserved weight; consequently there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and leave was denied.
6 Jul 2017

LO SIU WA v. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ASSISTANCE FUND BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LO SIU WA v. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ASSISTANCE FUND BOARD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV40/2016

The Court granted leave to appeal because the questions raised about construction of insurance policies under Part IV ECO and the statutory protection of employees are of great, general and public importance; it also allowed the admission of evidence from other cases for the leave application and made costs orders accordingly.
25 May 2017

CHAN LAI KUEN 對 CHAN CHI MING

Citation

CHAN LAI KUEN 對 CHAN CHI MING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4627/2014

The judge accepted the defendant's credible and consistent evidence that the HK$100,000 and HK$6,000 interest were repaid within a week and rejected the plaintiff's inconsistent and unreliable account; accordingly the plaintiff's claim fails and is dismissed; it was unnecessary to decide the limitation issue.