Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cross-examination on affidavit

Legal area

Court

5 May 2023

STEPHENSON HARWOOD (A FIRM) v. FANG ANKONG aka FANG AN KONG

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1230
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA191/2023

The court ordered that deponents must attend the Trial for cross-examination and that an absent deponent’s affirmation will be excluded; the Writ Action (including filing of a defence) is stayed pending judgment on the preliminary issue; a one‑day Trial was set with liberty to the defendants to seek more time after filing reply affirmations and list of issues by 25 May 2023. The orders were made because the preliminary issue is final and binding and fairness requires opportunity for oral explanation, balanced against considerations of delay and cost.
5 May 2023

HWH HOLDINGS LTD v. STEPHENSON HARWOOD (A FIRM)

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1230
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1614/2022

The judge exercised the discretionary power to require deponents to attend the preliminary issues trial for cross-examination because the trial outcome is final and binding, and cross-examination is necessary to afford a fair opportunity to explain matters in dispute; accordingly the Writ Action (including filing of a defence) is stayed pending judgment in the preliminary issues trial to avoid unnecessary costs until the proper defendant and terms of engagement are determined.
11 Jun 2021

RE FKS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1641
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMH40/2020

In Part II MHO proceedings the court will generally refuse cross-examination on affidavit where the disputes raised are complex financial matters unsuitable for the Part II forum, and where a decision on the applicant's fitness can properly be reached on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence; granting cross-examination would be disproportionate, cause delay, increase costs and would not be in the best interests of the alleged mentally incapacitated person.
19 May 2017

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATORS OF CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES INC. v. KPMG (A FIRM) AND OTHERS

Citation

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATORS OF CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES INC. v. KPMG (A FIRM) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW435/2012

Cross-examination was refused because the affidavits and subsequent corrective evidence presented by KPMG Hong Kong were clear that the Mainland‑stored documents were not accessible from Hong Kong and the Liquidators failed to identify evidence likely to be contradicted by oral testimony or to produce a materially different result; the application to vary or stay production was dismissed because there was no new, written or authoritative directive from the Ministry of Finance demonstrating a material change since the Court of Appeal's decision and therefore no basis to depart from the Court o…
14 Jul 2014

CCMJ v. SSM formerly known as SKL

Citation

CCMJ v. SSM formerly known as SKL
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP67/2010

The Court exercised its discretion under Order 38 to permit the late filing of the deponent's affirmation but, balancing the parties' interests and Civil Justice Reform objectives, held that exceptional circumstances (deponent's advanced age and validated medical evidence of significant coronary disease and risk of emotional stress) justified directing that the deponent need not attend and shall not be subject to cross-examination; cross-examination would have been warranted absent those exceptional medical circumstances.
10 Sept 2013

TAIHAN ELECTRIC WIRE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. LEE CHI YUEN ARCTIC AND OTHERS

Citation

TAIHAN ELECTRIC WIRE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. LEE CHI YUEN ARCTIC AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA454/2013

The application to order cross-examination of the deponent was dismissed because no special or exceptional circumstances were shown to justify departing from the general rule that interlocutory injunction hearings proceed on affidavit evidence; the proposed cross-examination would risk deciding merits or discrediting motive improperly, and the application was unreasonably late causing potential delay and prejudice.
11 Jul 2013

THE IMPERIAL GEMS & JEWELLERY FZCO v. EDWARD SIMON MIDDLETON AND OTHERS

Citation

THE IMPERIAL GEMS & JEWELLERY FZCO v. EDWARD SIMON MIDDLETON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW576/2008

Given the connected‑party context, late disclosure and provenance issues with key documents, lack of independent confirmation from DIL management, specific factual anomalies in the claimant's account and the fact the evidence underpins a final adjudication of rights, the court exercised its discretion to order that the deponent be made available for cross‑examination because such testing was likely to be productive of a useful result and not unduly oppressive.
14 Mar 2013

THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. ERNST & YOUNG (a firm)

Citation

THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. ERNST & YOUNG (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1818/2012

The court exercised its discretion to order cross-examination of the defendant's factual witness because there was a good and sufficient reason and it was in the interests of justice to test vagueness and inconsistencies in the affirmation; the court directed attendance for cross-examination and ordered procedural steps to define scope and manage expert evidence to enable a proper inquiry under s185 SFO.
1 Nov 2012

CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. CHAN TZE NGON AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. CHAN TZE NGON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1062/2012

The 1st defendant's disclosure was materially inadequate and raised serious concerns (including undisclosed surplus proceeds from a high-value property sale and closure of Hong Kong bank accounts) such that, to make the Mareva injunction effective and to locate assets at real risk of dissipation, the court must order cross-examination pursuant to the existing disclosure order.
28 Feb 2006

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. GOLD GLOBAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. GOLD GLOBAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2746/2004

The court exercised its discretion to order cross-examination of the Taiwanese deponents because there were factual and legal disputes—notably on the materiality of non-disclosure of Taipei proceedings and on the lawfulness of service in Taiwan—that could not properly be resolved on the papers and where refusal to permit cross-examination posed a real risk of injustice to the plaintiff; the orders were made on the plaintiff's undertaking to tender its own Taiwanese deponent for cross-examination.