Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Admission of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)

  • 15 May 2026

    陳壽祥 對 CHI WO CONTRACTORS LTD 及另一人

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 971
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP245/2024

    The fresh evidence applications were refused because most documents were not genuinely new or lacked independent value and did not satisfy Ladd v Marshall; the new materials could not overturn the trial judge's credibility and factual findings which were supported by evidence; consequently there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and leave to appeal was refused; applications for stay and admission of fresh evidence denied and costs awarded to respondents.

    • Leave to appeal
    • Admission of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)
    • Appellate standard of review
    • Credibility findings
    • Costs order
    • Stay of execution

  • 13 Apr 2026

    PERVEZ AKHTER v. JACKY CHAU KING YIN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2026] HKLdT 21
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPE1575/2025

    Conditions 3 and 5 of the Early Termination Agreement were not 'secondary' and imposed specific obligations including permission to remove items; Respondents failed to prove permission (breach of Condition 5) and provided insufficient evidence that fixtures/equipment were left and in working order (insufficient to satisfy Condition 3); acceptance of $35,000 and keys did not constitute waiver by conduct because the sum was part-payment of arrears and acceptance pre-dated the breach consequences; CCTV material did not meet Ladd v Marshall criteria and would not likely change the result; no argu…

    • Repossession
    • Arrears of rent
    • Early termination agreement
    • Breach of contract
    • Waiver by conduct
    • Leave to appeal

  • 12 Feb 2026

    滙龍按揭信貸有限公司 對 馮添華

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 865
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1631/2024

    Extension of time was refused because the defendant's alleged new evidence would not meet the Ladd v Marshall requirement that it would have an important influence on the outcome (the stock charges produced related to different loans and the antiques/paintings allegation was a bare assertion without documentary support), and the defendant failed to demonstrate reasonable inability to present the evidence earlier; consequently there was no real prospect of success on appeal and the application was dismissed with an interim costs order against the defendant.

    • Extension of time for appeal
    • Admission of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)
    • Unsecured loan agreements
    • Summary assessment of costs
    • Bare assertions as inadmissible evidence

  • 9 Jan 2026

    AGGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD v. WING YIP BUILDING MATERIALS & ENGINEERING CO LTD

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 41
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP446/2025

    Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff's sole ground (construction that payment must be made directly to the commercial department) is unarguable on the uncontested factual findings that the defendant's payment application was provided to and received by the plaintiff's commercial manager via an executive assistant (Mr KK Tam), and clause 4.1 does not prescribe the method of delivery; the application to adduce further evidence was refused because the material was available earlier and does not meet Ladd v Marshall criteria.

    • Leave to appeal under s14aa hco
    • Interlocutory injunction
    • Bona fide dispute on substantial grounds
    • Construction of sub-contract clause
    • Admission of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)
    • Restitution

  • 9 Dec 2025

    KAPOK SPIRIT INVESTMENT LTD v. LAI LEONG (also known as LI LIANG)

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 5504
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1818/2023

    Late amendment summons and reliance on Lai 3rd were dismissed for unreasonable delay, lack of satisfactory explanation and failure to satisfy Ladd v Marshall; implied terms sought were unnecessary and contradicted express clause permitting assignment (clause 16.2); assignment of the loan and the benefit of the guarantee did not materially vary or discharge the guarantor where assignment was contemplated by contract and notice was given; consequently defendant had no arguable defence to resist summary judgment and final judgment was proper for the plaintiff.

    • Assignment of debt
    • Summary judgment
    • Implied terms
    • Material variation of guarantee
    • Admission of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)
    • Amendment of pleadings

  • 18 Nov 2025

    安望置業有限公司 對 日進餐飲有限公司

    Citation
    [2025] HKLdT 71
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDPE1016/2025

    Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success: the lease contained an unconditional covenant to pay rent which excluded set-off; the tenant accepted the premises 'as-is' and the lease allocated maintenance risk; the alleged post-contractual promises and the fresh WhatsApp/inspection evidence did not meet Ladd v Marshall and did not validly alter contractual obligations; and the Lands Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain independent claims for damages arising from alleged breaches of repair obligations.

    • Possession
    • Rent covenant
    • Repair and maintenance obligations
    • Set-off and exclusion clauses
    • Admission of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)
    • Jurisdiction of lands tribunal

  • 30 Oct 2025

    TSANG LIN YAU LINDA (sue as the Administratrix De Bonis Non of the Estate of the late LEE WONG FUN CHONG also known as LEE WONG FUN CHONG Florence) v. LEE JUN SING AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 5117
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1114/2022

    Leave to appeal and the application to admit new evidence were dismissed as none of the grounds were reasonably arguable: the court correctly held it had power under s.52A(1) HCO to order the Plaintiff to pay costs and to prevent recovery from the estate where the order did not affect the estate; beneficiaries need not be heard when the order does not impinge on the estate; Tsang 2nd did not satisfy Ladd v Marshall and was not credible or sufficiently probative; the Beddoe test was correctly applied.

    • Leave to appeal under s.14(3)(e) hco
    • Admission of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)
    • Beddoe orders/indemnity of personal representatives
    • Jurisdiction to order personal liability for costs

  • 18 Aug 2025

    RE SUNNI INTERNATIONAL LTD

    Citation
    [2025] HKCA 753
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV201/2019

    Despite a significant unexplained delay, the court granted an extension because the failure to lodge the sealed Examination Order was plausibly attributable to the former solicitors' oversight, the appeal has a real prospect of success (the Leave Decision raised arguable grounds that the Examination Order was unduly oppressive) and the interests of justice justified allowing the appeal to proceed; accordingly Lo was permitted to lodge the sealed order within five days and costs were ordered on a nisi basis to Lo to be assessed summarily.

    • Examination order
    • Extension of time to lodge sealed order
    • Leave to appeal
    • Undue oppression
    • Admission of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)

  • 23 Jul 2025

    DP WORLD DJIBOUTI FZCO AND OTHERS v. CHINA MERCHANTS PORT HOLDINGS CO LTD

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 3208
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1951/2018

    Leave to adduce Michou 9 is granted because, notwithstanding the lateness, the Court must have a complete and accurate evidential picture to determine whether the Djibouti Dissolution Order should be recognised; the plaintiffs explained delay and offered defendant opportunity to reply; pragmatic case management and Order 1A r 2(2) RHC justify admission with tightly limited further evidence and a fixed reply deadline; any credibility or admissibility disputes (including lack of expert declaration) can be resolved at the substantive hearing.

    • Recognition of foreign judgments
    • Service abroad
    • Natural justice/public policy
    • Admission of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)
    • Expert evidence on foreign law

  • 22 Jul 2025

    LEUNG CHOI FAI v. WONG YEE FAI AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 3163
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1572/2022

    Service at the Classical Garden address was regular and D6 had notice by 24 November 2022; the further evidence was inadmissible because it could have been obtained earlier; D6 failed to establish a meritorious defence (bona fide purchaser or change of position) because his transaction records were inconsistent, failed to show source/flow of USDT, and unusual payment patterns put him on inquiry; the default judgment therefore stands and the late payment into court does not alter that outcome; appeal dismissed and payment in ordered paid to plaintiff, costs to defendant.

    • Default judgment
    • Setting aside
    • Service of process
    • Bona fide purchaser defence
    • Unjust enrichment
    • Constructive trust