Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Civil justice reform objectives

Legal area

Court

3 Apr 2019

MAGNUS LEONARD ROTH v. VITALY ORLOV AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 875
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2753/2017

Grant discovery only where prima facie case is established; apply relevance broadly but avoid fishing; here the court ordered limited discovery confined to Stephenson Harwood advice/instructions relevant to the alternate director issue (Item 6) and refused wider requests such as documents evidencing the Katla sale to MTF as not sufficiently relevant or too broad; where there is reason to believe further undisclosed documents exist the party themselves must swear an affidavit addressing possession custody or power and disposition of such documents.
10 Nov 2017

KUNG KWOK WAI DAVID, THE EXECUTOR OF THE LAST WILL OF KUNG WONG SAU HIN,DECEASED v. THE COMMISSIONER OF ESTATE DUTY

Citation

KUNG KWOK WAI DAVID, THE EXECUTOR OF THE LAST WILL OF KUNG WONG SAU HIN,DECEASED v. THE COMMISSIONER OF ESTATE DUTY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCED1/2011

Leave was granted to the plaintiff to file the 5th affidavit because the contested material (paras 11–28) is potentially relevant to a point the Commissioner may raise at trial regarding the creditor companies' capacity to have made the loans; the delay was limited and outweighed by the need to resolve the dispute on its merits under the CJR; the Commissioner is permitted to file evidence in reply within three weeks and costs of the summons are in the cause.
22 May 2017

YIFUNG PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. JAMES NICHOLAS BARRIE SMITH AND ANOTHER

Citation

YIFUNG PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. JAMES NICHOLAS BARRIE SMITH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2539/2015

The court refused the late affirmation because exceptional circumstances under O.32 r.11A(4) were not shown and the evidence was immaterial; the Statement of Claim was not struck out for want of any cause of action alone but, having regard to the facts, contemporaneous documents and the prior 1359 action, the claim as pursued against Elliott Advisors was plainly unsustainable, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process and was struck out with costs; issue estoppel applied because plaintiffs could and should have raised vicarious liability in the earlier proceedings.
16 Dec 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN PAK TAO

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN PAK TAO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2929/2015

Court directed that affidavits/affirmations filed by the Secretary for Justice shall stand as the evidence in chief of the deponents provided they attend to be cross-examined, subject to the trial judge's discretion to require oral evidence (in whole or part), because the direction promotes efficient administration of justice and Civil Justice Reform objectives while not causing shown real prejudice and preserving cross-examination rights.
28 Apr 2014

JOSE MIRANDA DA COSTA JUNIOR AND ANOTHER v. LORENZO YIH, also known as YU CHUAN YIH AND OTHERS

Citation

JOSE MIRANDA DA COSTA JUNIOR AND ANOTHER v. LORENZO YIH, also known as YU CHUAN YIH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA156/2010

Leave to appeal was refused because the late affidavit did not disclose exceptional circumstances under RHC O 32 r 11A(4) or Ladd v Marshall, the evidence could and should have been filed earlier, its late filing prejudiced the respondent by denying adequate opportunity to reply, and granting leave to appeal to present a fuller picture to the Court of Appeal would improperly circumvent the leave requirements for interlocutory appeals and undermine CJR objectives.
6 Mar 2014

TO PUI KUI AND OTHERS v. HULTUCKTONG CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TO PUI KUI AND OTHERS v. HULTUCKTONG CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1041/2009

The summons for leave to adduce fresh handwriting expert evidence on signatures of living parties was dismissed because the applicant failed to show sufficient cause to vary prior orders limiting expert evidence to the deceased father's signatures; allowing the application would be unjust, prejudicial, and contrary to consolidation, procedural economy and Civil Justice Reform objectives, particularly where witnesses are available for cross-examination and there has been no change in circumstances or appeal against the prior orders.
18 Jun 2012

GURUNG AN PARSAD v. GREAT WEALTHY ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GURUNG AN PARSAD v. GREAT WEALTHY ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI687/2010

The master was correct to dismiss the late application: once a case is ready or set down for trial the court will not entertain late witness statements unless signed statements with a statement of truth are produced enabling assessment of admissibility, relevance and probative value, and the court must refuse late evidence that would cause undue prejudice or disruption having regard to civil justice reform objectives.
29 Dec 2011

ACLS v. HSBTL

Citation

ACLS v. HSBTL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1937/2011

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge properly exercised his case management discretion in adjourning the strike out application to be heard with the substantive trial: the matter was ready for trial, disputed factual issues required oral evidence and cross-examination, the judge's decision was not plainly wrong, and the appeal was therefore without reasonable prospects of success.
22 Jan 2010

LU GUO XIANG v. HONG KONG MING WAH SHIPPING CO LTD

Citation

LU GUO XIANG v. HONG KONG MING WAH SHIPPING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP53/2010

The court held that although Yam J was justified in wanting an early disposal, the bringing-forward of the quantum hearing to 18–22 January 2010 on the short notice given created unacceptable prejudice and uncertainty given the complexity of the hearing and witness availability; accordingly leave to appeal against the 12 January 2010 order was granted and the order was set aside while the separate 10 December 2009 challenge to Yam J's reservation of the quantum hearing was dismissed for lack of merit. The controlling principle is that active case management must be balanced with fairness and…