Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Exchange of witness statements

Legal area

Court

28 May 2025

LEUNG WING CHAU CARSON 及另一人對 LAM YAU SHU 及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 840
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1381/2024

Extension of the first defendant's appeal time was granted because the appeal had a real prospect of success and the delay caused no prejudice; the hearing officer's order requiring the defendants to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the extension application was set aside as unreasonable and legally wrong because the hearing officer failed to consider whether the plaintiffs' own delays in arranging expert testing caused the application; the extension to the period for exchange of witness statements was appropriate to allow responses to expert reports.
24 May 2024

GUANGDONG YINGGAO SHIPPING LTD (SUBSTITUTED BY ORDER OF MASTER HUI DATED 20 JANUARY 2021) v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 492
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP368/2023

Leave to appeal refused because the Judge correctly applied the legal tests: it was not plain and obvious that the defendant had failed to exchange the four witness statements and the factual disputes could not be resolved on affidavit; the absence of filing did not prove non‑exchange; Lui was competent to testify in his role and any hearsay affects weight not admissibility; the Judge's exercise of discretion was not plainly wrong.
6 Nov 2023

GUANGDONG YINGGAO SHIPPING LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2851
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1677/2015

The appeal was dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to show it was plain and obvious that the Defendant never exchanged the witness statements on 9 November 2016; the late hearsay account (Chin 4th) was rejected as unreliable; and LSF was held competent to give evidence as person in charge of the operation, so there was no basis to expunge his statement or strike out the Amended Defence.
31 Dec 2020

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. T.H. LEE BOOK CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCT 12
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA2/2020

The Tribunal has jurisdiction under the Ordinance and Rules to direct simultaneous exchange of witness statements; such a direction does not breach article 11 or privileges because it does not compel incriminating testimony, respondents remain free to remain silent and unused filed statements cannot be used if the witness is not called; given the Originating Notice, disclosure practice and need for efficient case management, simultaneous exchange is appropriate in enforcement actions before the Tribunal.
31 Mar 2017

TALENT FOCUS EDUCATION CENTRE LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN PO CHUN

Citation

TALENT FOCUS EDUCATION CENTRE LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN PO CHUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1439/2015

The summonses for exchange of witness statements were adjourned sine die with liberty to restore rather than being withheld permanently because the plaintiffs failed to place admissible evidence showing real and specific prejudice from exchange (their timetabling questionnaire was insufficient), their pleadings already disclosed their case (weakening any right to silence), and discovery and particulars remain incomplete; the proper course is to revisit the issue after progress is reported.
18 Sept 2007

W.P. HOLDINGS LTD v. SWISSAIR (SWISSÔTEL) MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

W.P. HOLDINGS LTD v. SWISSAIR (SWISSÔTEL) MANAGEMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9736/1999

The court held that the defendant's appeal was utterly devoid of merit and constituted unnecessary satellite litigation that would prolong the main action; accordingly the appeal's abandonment warranted an award of indemnity costs (including the stay application). Given the lengthy history and the need to prevent further delay the court made an unless order requiring the defendant to exchange witness statements by a fixed date (90 days) failing which the defendant would not be entitled to adduce witness evidence without leave.
23 Dec 2003

LI SHIU TO v. LI SHIU TSANG AND OTHERS

Citation

LI SHIU TO v. LI SHIU TSANG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA416/2003

The court found the challenge to the 7-day specific-discovery order to be academic because the plaintiff had in fact applied for specific discovery; it confirmed that consent orders obligate compliance and that there was no demonstrated prejudice from exchanging witness statements on all issues; however, on appeal the court set aside the master's unless order and granted the plaintiff an extension of time to exchange witness statements, directing further submissions from counsel on the length of the extension.
17 Nov 1998

YING CHOW LUNG v. THE KOWLOON MOTOR BUS CO. (1933) LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

YING CHOW LUNG v. THE KOWLOON MOTOR BUS CO. (1933) LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI74/1998

The appeal was allowed and the Master’s order set aside; the Court exercised its discretion to substitute a varied unless order giving the 2nd Defendant a final deadline (4pm on 1 December 1998) to file signed witness statements and ruled that failure to do so would bar the 2nd Defendant from adducing the related evidence at trial without leave; costs of the Plaintiff's summons were ordered to be paid by the 2nd Defendant, and costs of the appeal were ordered to be paid by the Plaintiff to the 2nd Defendant.
5 Nov 1997

CHOW KWOK FAI v. WAYSUNTONE COMMUNICATION LIMITED

Citation

CHOW KWOK FAI v. WAYSUNTONE COMMUNICATION LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8866/1996

The Master had jurisdiction under the court's inherent jurisdiction and O.38 r.2A(17) to impose an unless order; the defendant's unexplained and prolonged failure to comply warranted the sanction; the discretion was properly exercised and the appeal, being academic after compliance, is dismissed.