Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Ladd v marshall new evidence rule

Legal area

Court

21 Jul 2025

WONG HOI TUNG TSO v. ALL OCCUPIERS (WHOSE NAMES ARE UNKNOWN, EXCEPT THE 2ND TO 5TH DEFENDANTS) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3031
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP761/2015

Defendants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal either as to irregularity of service or on the merits (adverse possession); their new theories lacked identifiable new evidence satisfying Ladd v Marshall; accordingly the stay was refused and costs awarded to Plaintiff.
9 Dec 2019

LI KIN KEUNG v. YAT FAT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2977
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA341/2013

The court refused all stay applications because the appeal was not shown to be arguable given the trial judge's factual findings, the proffered new evidence failed the Ladd v Marshall requirements and would not render the appeal arguable, no satisfactory evidence of dissipation was produced and Li provided an undertaking regarding shares; accordingly, enforcement orders under Order 45 rr 6 and 8 were justified to fix compliance time and authorise execution of share transfer documents, with costs to follow the event.