Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fresh evidence on appeal

Legal area

Court

20 Apr 2026

TREASURE SPOT FINANCE CO LTD v. HO KWAN CHEONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 585
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV102/2025

Leave to adduce further evidence was refused because the applicant failed all three Ladd v Marshall conditions: (1) the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence given the applicant is a qualified solicitor who should have known and raised concerns earlier; (2) the evidence was not apparently credible (bare assertions, no contemporaneous documentation, implausible timing); and (3) even if true, solicitor incompetence is a matter for negligence proceedings and unlikely to have probably influenced the outcome of a full trial, so it does not justify overturning the judgment on…
25 Nov 2025

GRADE ONE LTD AND OTHERS v. CHOW CHIN YUI, ANGELA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1051
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV371/2022

The Court held the new evidence was capable of showing the plaintiffs' liabilities may have been discharged by a US$3,000,000 loan arranged in Oct 2020 and that there was a reasonable prospect of proving the summary judgment may have been obtained by fraud through suppression; conditions 2 and 3 of Ladd v Marshall (materiality and causation) were satisfied and the reasonable diligence limb could be relaxed in the circumstances, therefore leave to adduce fresh evidence was granted, the summary judgment set aside and unconditional leave to defend was ordered.
25 Aug 2025

高宏鳴對陳樹容及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKCA 768
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV241/2024

The application to adduce fresh evidence on appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to satisfy the first Ladd v Marshall requirement of showing he exercised reasonable diligence to obtain the documents before the original hearing (the documents were in his possession or obtainable), and the proposed evidence was not material to the narrow limitation question on appeal; accordingly the summonses to file those documents were dismissed and costs awarded to the second defendant (HKD 93,791).
30 Jul 2025

HKSAR v. SHEHOZA VICENT KENNEDY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 687
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC151/2023

The judge at trial was entitled to accept the identification and credibility evidence of PW1 and PW2 given their proximity, lighting and continuous observation; the voir dire related only to admissibility of a VRI and did not infect general findings; the fresh evidence was available at trial and not admissible except de bene esse; allegations of flagrant incompetence were not established. Accordingly there is no reasonable basis to grant leave to appeal against conviction.
24 Jun 2025

香港特別行政區訴黃展新

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2230
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA448/2023

Applying the re‑hearing standard, the court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings based on CCTV and conduct, refused to admit the proffered fresh hospital records as they offered no substantive assistance and were not shown to be unavailable at trial, concluded the prosecution proved dishonest intent beyond reasonable doubt, and dismissed the appeal.
12 Dec 2024

WONG CHAK WING AND ANOTHER v. CAMELO INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1155
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV32/2022

The Court dismissed the application because the plaintiff failed the first Ladd v Marshall condition: the fresh documents existed before trial and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that they could not, with reasonable diligence, have been obtained for trial. Alleged misconduct of the former solicitors does not constitute a special ground to satisfy the reasonable diligence test and cannot, without further satisfactory explanation, justify admitting the evidence. The Court declined to exercise any residual discretion to admit the evidence. The application was dismissed with costs fixed at HK…
28 Nov 2024

林秀霞，the Committee of the estate of 李英，a mentally incapacitated person (pursuant to the Order of the Honourable Madam Justice Marlene Ng made on 3 November 2021 under Part II of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap 136）對林鎮星

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2011
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP128/2022

The defendant failed to identify any arguable error in the impugned order; the registry‑issued writs are not appealable judicial decisions under Order 58; the proposed fresh evidence relates to execution matters and does not satisfy Ladd v Marshall's materiality requirement; the subpoena application is irrelevant to appeal permission. Therefore all applications are dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
6 Aug 2024

香港特別行政區訴李德源

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2841
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA433/2023

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant did not give evidence at trial and failed to adduce or explain the absence of the factual matters now relied upon; the magistrate's acceptance of the eyewitness evidence and CCTV was reasonable and entitled to deference, so the convictions and sentences are upheld.
13 Dec 2023

WANG YUEXIAN v. XINYANG MAOJIAN GROUP LTD formerly known as CHINA ZENITH CHEMICAL GROUP LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3236
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA231/2022

The defendant failed to raise any arguable or believable triable defence to the claim for $5,500,000; the proposed Clause 5.2 defence and the fresh evidence were inadmissible or not credible on the Ladd v Marshall standard; partial summary judgment could be granted notwithstanding reliance on aspects of the defendant's purported case; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and summary judgment for $5,500,000 was upheld.
20 Sept 2023

HKSAR v. DINH KA YAN, GIGI

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1100
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC122/2021

The Court held the judge lawfully formed her own view of the facts to the criminal standard where the jury's verdict admitted more than one interpretation, properly rejected the appellant's self-consumption case on the evidence, applied sentencing guidelines to the proven quantity and legitimately limited the self-consumption discount; accordingly the 8 year sentence and forfeiture were upheld and the appeal dismissed.