Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Expert evidence on foreign law

Legal area

Court

28 Oct 2025

KING BUN LTD AND OTHERS v. LAU MAN SANG, JAMES AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5085
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1711/2023

CPR r.42.9 does not render the BVI Costs Orders non-final because it only permits variation of time or mode of compliance rather than reopening merits; plaintiffs' BVI expert evidence, unchallenged by contrary BVI law evidence, established finality; potential future BVI orders are speculative and any set-off would be for the BVI court to determine; accordingly the appeal disclosed no arguable defence and was dismissed.
17 Oct 2025

POOSAALA RAM PRASAD v. HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4818
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA279/2021

The Master's order permitting the Defendant to adduce expert evidence on Indian law was correct because the Property is in India and lex situs governs the validity of the conveyance; whether the Purchase was legally binding under Indian law is relevant to causation of loss. The presumption of similarity does not displace the need for expert evidence where the foreign law is put in issue. There was no evidential basis to exclude the Defendant's expert for lack of independence. The costs order in respect of the adjournment was not unreasonable or legally erroneous and should stand.
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.
10 Jun 2025

HSC AND ANOTHER v. 田

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2483
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP706/2025

Substituted service via the agent was refused because no attempts were made to effect service by prescribed methods, substituted service cannot be justified by speed alone, the proposed agent was unreliable and unqualified to effect service, and written consents did not extinguish procedural requirements; application for interim care and control was dismissed for lack of necessity or emergency and because the Wife's legal maternal status was not established; leave was granted to file a further PRC expert report and further affirmation to address whether Surrogates can relinquish maternal righ…
6 Oct 2023

WONG, CHI HUNG v. LO, WING PUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1284
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1960/2019

The agreement objectively required deposit into Ms Kwok’s BOC account but was unenforceable in Hong Kong because it breached PRC foreign exchange regulations; nonetheless the plaintiff established an unjust enrichment claim against the 2nd defendant because the 2nd defendant received the RMB1,000,000 at the plaintiff’s expense, PRC Civil Code article 157 permits restitution (or payment of an equivalent sum) and the defence of foreign illegality was not made out so as to bar restitution; claim against 1st defendant dismissed.
11 Nov 2022

PATRICK JAMES JOSEPH O\'MARA v. CHIN SHAU TONG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3457
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1253/2019

The court held the plaintiff's cause of action accrued on 6 July 2010 (no demand was required by the loan term). Both the Hong Kong Limitation Ordinance and the relevant Swiss limitation rule are procedural in character for Hong Kong conflict purposes, so the Hong Kong six-year limitation (lex fori) applies; the claim issued in 2019 was therefore time-barred and the writ and statement of claim were to be struck out.
20 Jul 2022

GM-SA aka DG, M-S v. DDPJ

Citation

[2022] HKCA 870
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV200/2022

The Judge erred in law by pre-emptively limiting relevance of proposed French law expert evidence to a later stage and by determining materiality interlocutorily; expert evidence on French law is relevant to whether, if the consent order were set aside, the PNA would have affected ancillary relief and therefore to the materiality inquiry, so leave to adduce such expert evidence must be granted and the Judge's order of 30 November 2021 set aside, subject to cost orders reflecting the appellant's undue delay.
30 Aug 2019

VO VAN HUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2113
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1091/2017

Where an authoritative English text of the foreign criminal code is publicly available and the parties had the opportunity to address its provisions, high standards of fairness do not automatically require the tribunal to call expert evidence on foreign law; on the facts the Board was not unfair for relying on the available COI and the English Penal Code in assessing the risk and thus expert evidence was not required.
3 Dec 2018

ZHANG HONG LI AND OTHERS v. DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCA 917
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV138/2017

The application for leave was dismissed because the contested questions were predominantly fact-specific and not of great general or public importance; the leave application was not out of time because court vacation days are excluded from the computation of time; established authorities show causation in equity is a matter of legal analysis rather than automatic application of tests from other contexts; the 'or otherwise' ground is a matter for the Court of Final Appeal.
19 Mar 2018

WADDINGTON LTD v. CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 580
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3291/2003

Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie or reasonably arguable case that further disclosure from RSRB would identify a 'real party' who should be targeted for a non-party costs order; the information sought was unlikely to be highly probative and would risk generating satellite litigation. The expert BVI law evidence application was late and there were no exceptional circumstances to admit it. Therefore the court exercised its discretion to refuse additional disclosure and to refuse admission of the expert evidence.