Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ladd v marshall

Legal area

Court

22 Apr 2026

GLOBAL ENTERPRISES CORPORATION LTD v. TOMY INDUSTRIAL CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2280
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2076/2023

The appeal is dismissed because the Master did not err in law or act unreasonably: the Master reasonably concluded a binding settlement was reached on the evidence and, alternatively, properly assessed the merits of the setting aside application; the Ladd v Marshall material was admitted but did not materially affect the outcome; accordingly the Master's Costs Order is upheld and the plaintiff must pay the defendants' costs of this re‑hearing in the sum awarded.
6 Jun 2025

LI YIZHOU v. CHINA ZENITH CHEMICAL GROUP LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2443
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1790/2023

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because (1) no separate leave was required where the defendant had an appeal as of right against the final judgment and (2) alternatively, the proposed grounds lacked reasonable prospect of success as the alleged fresh evidence failed to satisfy the three limbs in Ladd v Marshall; indemnity costs of HK$100,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.
20 Dec 2024

LI YIZHOU v. CHINA ZENITH CHEMICAL GROUP LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3654
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1790/2023

Leave to admit the new undated refund letter fails because defendant did not exercise reasonable diligence to produce it to the Master (first limb of Ladd v Marshall), the letter would not have had important influence on the outcome nor was it sufficiently credible; on rehearing de novo defendant failed to demonstrate any bona fide triable defence (delivery, estoppel or illegality) that is supported by contemporaneous evidence; therefore the Master's summary judgment that the Bond was valid and payable is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
18 Mar 2024

BEGUM SHUFIA AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 241
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV19/2023

Court allowed amendment to perfect the Fabio ground and admitted Category 2 documents because they were before the Board and the amendment was minor, but refused leave to introduce the New Ground and to adduce Category 1 documents because the applicants were legally represented before the Board, gave no satisfactory explanation why the Husband was not called or his documents produced (suggesting the omission may have been deliberate), and permitting the New Ground would require the Court to examine the Board's decision afresh which is impermissible on an appeal against refusal of leave to app…
21 Apr 2023

CHEN JINHUI v. WONG KAM SAN (黃錦新), by his guardian ad litem, HUANG YUEXIA (黃月霞) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 513
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV178/2021

The Court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal: the Ladd v Marshall conditions were not satisfied for the excluded categories of new evidence; the reasonable diligence requirement could not be relaxed because the proposed evidence did not show a reasonable prospect that the CFI judgment was obtained by fraud for which the Plaintiff was responsible; Exhibit ZRW-32 (post-trial interview) was inadmissible because credibility could not be tested by cross-examination; interlocutory leave to appeal was refused as the questions did not meet the threshold for referral to the Court of Final…
15 Jul 2022

AZUBUINE SOLOMON KINGSLEY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 860
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV231/2021

The Ladd v Marshall conditions for admitting fresh evidence on appeal apply in non-refoulement appeals; the applicant failed to satisfy the first condition (reasonable diligence) and the second condition (probable important influence) in respect of the proposed medical and country-of-origin evidence; the matters raised are fact-specific and not of great general or public importance; accordingly the residual discretion was not exercised and leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
16 Jun 2022

DR IP DAVID v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2022] HKCA 877
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV279/2020

The application to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed because the PIC notices and pre-hearing correspondence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the disciplinary inquiry and, in any event, would not probably have had an important influence on the appeal: the appellant's counsel had accepted at the inquiry that the charge included the alternatives 'without proper care' and 'without investigation' and the Council sentenced on that proven basis. Leave to adduce the documents was therefore refused and costs were ordered.
21 Aug 2013

EVER GOLD INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. VINCENT THOMAS

Citation

EVER GOLD INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. VINCENT THOMAS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1138/2013

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the proposed expert evidence was irrelevant to the plaintiff's claim and did not meet the Ladd v Marshall requirements; the Tenancy Agreement was not rendered illegal by the alleged defects; the defendant gave no adequate explanation for failing to produce the evidence earlier or for how the judge erred in exercising discretion; accordingly leave and a stay were refused and costs awarded.