Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ladd v marshall rule

Legal area

Court

21 Feb 2024

NEW SPARKLE ROLL INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. SZE CHING LAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 689
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA123/2024

The court refused to adjourn and declined to give the requested directions; it held that the court is not obliged to decide for a party whether to proceed without evidence or to adjourn to permit further evidence, and that admission of fresh evidence remains subject to the Ladd v Marshall criteria so as to prevent a second bite at the cherry.
14 Feb 2018

CCM EARTH LTD AND OTHERS v. ALFA GCM LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 350
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1210/2016

The court agreed with the master that the defendant has a real prospect of success but refused to admit further evidence on appeal because the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence; the master did not err in imposing the condition of payment into court of HK$1,000,000 given the defendant's delay and conduct; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the master's order stands.
28 Jun 2017

COMILANG, MILAGROS TECSON AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

COMILANG, MILAGROS TECSON AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV59/2016

The summonses to adduce fresh evidence were dismissed because the appellants could have obtained the Chronologies with reasonable diligence prior to the hearing below and they failed to demonstrate the wholly exceptional circumstances necessary to relax the Ladd v Marshall rule in public law; accordingly the fresh evidence was not admitted and the summonses were dismissed.
17 Aug 2006

TADANO SOUTH CHINA CO LTD v. BRIGHTFORD LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TADANO SOUTH CHINA CO LTD v. BRIGHTFORD LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV152/2006

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria for admitting fresh evidence and had not made full and frank disclosure of his means or timely pleaded the no‑demand defence; the judge's order making leave to defend conditional on payment into court of the guaranteed amount was a proper exercise of judicial discretion and not vulnerable to appellate interference.

Hong Kong Case Law

NEW SPARKLE ROLL INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. SZE CHING LAU AND ANOTHER

CCM EARTH LTD AND OTHERS v. ALFA GCM LTD

COMILANG, MILAGROS TECSON AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

TADANO SOUTH CHINA CO LTD v. BRIGHTFORD LTD AND ANOTHER