Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admission of fresh evidence

Legal area

Court

8 May 2026

ALI ZUALFIQAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2348
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1265/2020

Short unexplained delay (approx. 1.5 months) combined with the absence of any grounds and the lack of any realistic prospect of success in the intended appeal (the Court had already found the challenge not reasonably arguable) justified refusal to extend time; the untranslated document was not admitted for lack of relevance, explanation or translation.
27 Apr 2026

FUNG SUK YEE v. CHAN SHING YAN TRADING AS WONDER EDUCATION INVESTMENT CONSULTING CO

Citation

[2026] HKDC 744
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6554/2024

The court refused the fresh evidence application because the plaintiff failed all three Ladd v Marshall requirements (no reasonable effort to produce the material at first instance, the materials would not have had a substantial impact on the outcome, and they lacked prima facie credibility). The default judgment was held to be regularly obtained and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success or adduce an admissible affidavit of merits; accordingly both the application to admit fresh evidence and the appeal to set aside the judgment were dismissed and costs were ordered (c…
23 Apr 2026

馮承宗對蔡景紅

Citation

[2026] HKCA 757
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV171/2024

The court allowed the plaintiff to file the supplemental affidavit but refused the defendant's application to adduce fresh evidence because the defendant failed the primary Ladd v Marshall requirement of demonstrating that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence before or during trial, and the proposed materials lacked sufficient importance/impact and credibility; accordingly the defendant's 17 January 2025 summons was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the sum of HKD133,000.
13 Apr 2026

RE THAKUR SHISIR CHANDRA

Citation

[2026] HKCA 492
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV41/2026

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to advance any viable ground to overturn the Board's fact-based credibility findings, failed to justify delay, failed to satisfy the Ladd v Marshall requirements for adducing fresh evidence on appeal, and judicial review cannot operate as a rehearing of the non-refoulement claim; accordingly the Judge rightly refused extension of time and leave to apply for judicial review.
9 Mar 2026

陳戈理 (又名陳為) 對柯伍陳律師事務所及另一人

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1444
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1211/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the plaintiff lacks standing to sue for reflective losses of the company; the core factual issues (receipt signed and non-payment of instalments) are final by the winding‑up proceedings and re-litigation is an abuse of process; the amended pleadings fail to disclose any reasonable cause of action against the defendants (including no duty by the solicitor to the plaintiff) and the defects are incurable; accordingly the strike-out order was correctly made and fresh evidence is not admitted.
3 Mar 2026

MAI VAN LUAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1300
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2556/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to present a reasonably arguable claim with particulars; the Board's decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality after anxious scrutiny; materials not before the Board could not be admitted; and the Director's decision was superseded and not independently reviewable.
2 Mar 2026

蕭志明對法律援助署署長

Citation

[2026] HKCA 305
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV485/2024

The mandatory requirement in Order 53 r3(2)(a) that Form 86 state the relief sought and the grounds was not met; the court may refuse leave where the form is effectively blank and the relief cannot be ascertained from supporting affidavits. The fresh evidence application failed because most documents existed prior to the leave application and did not satisfy the first and second Ladd v Marshall conditions. Challenges to the Deputy Registrar's directions on bundle preparation and procedure were unfounded. Therefore leave was properly refused and the appeal is dismissed.
26 Feb 2026

香港特別行政區訴林松偉

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 566
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA277/2024

The court refused to admit the four photographs as fresh evidence for lack of explanation and insufficient probative effect; on re‑hearing the court accepted the police witness as credible and reliable and concluded the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant disobeyed a red traffic light; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the magistrate's conviction and sentence were upheld.
6 Feb 2026

香港特別行政區訴羅興娟

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 585
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA117/2025

The CCTV (P1), an uncontested objective exhibit, clearly recorded mutual spitting and reciprocal physical acts amounting to mutual assault; those facts satisfy the statutory offence of fighting in a public place. The judge correctly evaluated P1, considered medical records and submissions, properly refused irrelevant fresh evidence and requests for unrelated police‑station CCTV, and lawfully rejected self‑defence. On re‑hearing the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that all elements were proved and accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed conviction and sentence.
29 Jan 2026

AHMED RAJA NASEEM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 439
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2670/2024

Although the applicant's 7-day delay and personal circumstances were not significant, he failed to present any proper draft grounds or identify any error of law or procedural unfairness; he attempted to rely on fresh evidence not previously before the decision-makers; therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success and extension of time was refused as futile.