Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Barrell jurisdiction

  • 29 May 2020

    LIU WEIGUANG v. LI KENG KO AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2020] HKDC 357
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI2723/2018

    The judge exercised the court's jurisdiction to amend the judgment because the failure to include pre-trial loss of earnings and MPF for 20 October 2016 to 14 January 2020 was a clear omission amounting to an error that could be corrected without reopening contested issues. The amendment corrects an essential part of the damages calculation using wage statistics (CSD data) consistent with the original judgment, results in revised pre-trial and post-trial loss figures and increases total damages to HK$1,503,677.13, and the amendment was permitted without disturbing the appeal process.

  • 19 Sept 2013

    TCWF v. LKKS

    Citation
    TCWF v. LKKS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV166/2012

    Two accountant letters were admitted into the appeal bundle on a non-agreed basis because, on the material before the Court, they appeared to be summaries of evidence already before the trial judge and not new expert evidence; by contrast, the Petitioner's applications to admit fresh financial statements (including the Bertelli statement) and the Brown Envelope documents were refused because they constituted fresh evidence which did not satisfy Ladd v Marshall, risked re-opening factual disputes, would disrupt the appeal, and raised reliability concerns.

  • 19 Sept 2013

    TCWF v. LKKS

    Citation
    TCWF v. LKKS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV154/2012

    The court allowed the Respondent's 1 August 2013 summons to include the two accountant letters in the appeal bundles on a non-agreed basis because, on the material before it, the letters appeared to be summaries of existing evidence and not new expert opinion; conversely, the court dismissed the Petitioner's 9 and 15 August 2013 summonses to adduce fresh financial statements, the Bertelli statement and the Brown Envelope documents because the Petitioner could not satisfy Ladd v Marshall, the proposed new evidence would be disruptive and of doubtful reliability or material influence on the app…