Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ladd v marshall principles

Legal area

Court

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.
9 Apr 2024

黄對陈

Citation

[2024] HKCA 311
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP348/2023

Leave to appeal refused because the proposed grounds had no reasonable prospect of success: the impugned order was a case‑management measure to secure the child's return so welfare inquiries and custody determinations could follow, and the fresh evidence either did not meet Ladd v Marshall/EBS v NTCD thresholds or was irrelevant to the narrow return order.
19 Jan 2023

中紀投資有限公司 v. 青山道國際工業大廈業主立案法團 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCA 93
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV96/2021

The court dismissed the IO's summons because the proposed additional ground and new evidence failed the Flywin 'state of the evidence' fairness hurdle and so leave to adduce that evidence on appeal was refused; by contrast the 9A owner, not being a party at trial, could not be barred by those rules and was granted leave to adduce its proposed evidence and to advance estoppel/acquiescence/clean hands and Buildings Ordinance arguments on appeal.
6 May 2022

SIU WAI MING v. SHIU WAI HONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 612
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV84/2020

Application dismissed because the plaintiff failed the primary Ladd v Marshall requirement that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence (explanation for post-trial discovery was unsatisfactory), the 17-month delay was inordinate and unexplained, the new evidence was peripheral and unlikely to affect the outcome, and the court declined to exercise residual discretion; costs awarded to defendants and assessed at $367,474.
28 Mar 2022

WONG HING v. NG LEUNG FA

Citation

[2022] HKDC 270
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP165/2018

The Court held the draft 3rd affirmation was properly characterized as material supporting an O.3 r.5 application for extension of time (reasons for delay) rather than fresh evidence for the substantive appeal under O.58 r.1(4); accordingly no leave was required to file it but, in any event, leave was granted; the affirmation is admitted for the limited purpose of the time extension application and the judge hearing the appeal will assess its weight; case management directions and a timetable were given and costs were ordered in the cause with plaintiff's costs taxed under the Legal Aid Regul…
11 Mar 2021

鄭寶珠對賴國林及另一人

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 12
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE1430/2020

The Tribunal found the newly produced termination notice and supporting material did not meet the Ladd v Marshall criteria and were not credible; respondents failed to prove effective service by both co-owners; therefore the original finding that the tenancy remained valid stood and the application for leave to appeal was refused under s11AA(6).
14 May 2012

WONG LAI LING v. LAM KIN CHUNG

Citation

WONG LAI LING v. LAM KIN CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA828/2011

The summons to admit after-discovered committal material was dismissed because the defendant failed to establish the special grounds required for fresh evidence on appeal: the material was effectively self-generated, the defendant did not exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining the endorsement before the master, the evidence would not have an important influence on the Order 14 result, and the contested endorsement lacked corroboration and was not prima facie credible.
16 Nov 2010

SINGH CHAMKAUR v. RICHARD ETHAN LATKER t/a SINO INDIAN TRADE ENTERPRISES

Citation

SINGH CHAMKAUR v. RICHARD ETHAN LATKER t/a SINO INDIAN TRADE ENTERPRISES
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV270/2009

The appeal was dismissed because the Court concluded the trial judge's credibility-based finding that the applicant was injured by falling bricks was open to him and not plainly wrong, and the application to adduce fresh expert evidence on appeal was refused because the respondent failed to show the special grounds required by Ladd v Marshall and the procedural rules to justify late evidence.
16 Jul 2010

RE HO SUK BING, RITA

Citation

RE HO SUK BING, RITA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV205/2009

The appeal was dismissed because the debtor failed to comply with the Bankruptcy Rules (no notice to show cause, no affidavit in opposition, no opposition at the adjourned hearing), failed to raise any bona fide dispute at the Court of First Instance so as to require the Master to adjourn, and attempted to adduce fresh evidence on appeal contrary to the Ladd v Marshall principles; there was no sufficient basis to conclude the prior District Court judgment was obtained by fraud.
28 Apr 2009

KWAN YIM KWAN, PEGGY v. NAMKUNG PROMOTIONS (WORLDWIDE) LTD

Citation

KWAN YIM KWAN, PEGGY v. NAMKUNG PROMOTIONS (WORLDWIDE) LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV86/2008

The summons was dismissed because the travel documents could have been obtained with reasonable diligence before or during the re-trial and hence the first Ladd v Marshall condition is not satisfied; because the documents would not be admitted as fresh evidence on appeal the discovery application is futile; therefore no discovery ordered and costs awarded to the defendant.