Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Late disclosure of evidence

Legal area

Court

8 Mar 2024

HONG KONG BALANCE INTERNATIONAL TRADING & LOGISTICS CO., LTD v. KWOK YIK HUNG and NG KWOK WAI t/a ALPHA HEALTHCARE & TECHNOLOGY COMPANY

Citation

[2024] HKDC 322
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3716/2021

Because (a) the contracting party under the First Contract was Deng personally (not the Plaintiff) and Alpha Healthcare delivered the masks, (b) Chan had no actual or apparent authority to accept payments into his personal account and the invoices expressly prescribed payment to Alpha Healthcare, and (c) the Plaintiff failed to inquire despite being put on notice, the Alleged Second and Third Contracts were not concluded and the Plaintiff's claims fail.
6 Jun 2023

CHEN YUE v. LI SHAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1525
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA524/2022

The variation application was dismissed because the evidence that one quarter of the Redemption Amount had been paid to third parties was belated and unexplained, the injunction was properly aimed at preserving the Company's assets (Investment 8 was USD4m) pending trial, and D1 failed to show a legal obligation requiring the Company to repay the third parties on partial redemption; the requested time extension became academic when the transfer was credited on 29 May 2023.
7 Aug 2020

TANG MAN CHEE (鄧萬治) as The Personal Representative of the Estate of Tang Kwong Ah (鄧光亞), deceased v. LO CHUN

Citation

[2020] HKDC 632
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3363/2016

The court preferred credible witness and aerial/surveyor evidence over the deceased occupier's untested affirmation and found occupation and complete enclosure of the encroached area only commenced circa 2006; that period is insufficient to satisfy the Limitation Ordinance for adverse possession of the registered title; consequently adverse possession was not established and the plaintiff is entitled to possession and nominal damages.
28 May 2020

CHU HSIAO CHIU alias CHU TONY CHU HSIAO CHIU alias CHU HSIAO CHIU, deceased v. MA JINRUI MA MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 942
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2994/2018

The court exercised its discretion to admit the two late affidavits because their relevance and probative value, combined with manageable prejudice to the defendants and available short adjournment, justified admission; the defendants were given a six-week reply period, the hearing was adjourned to a specific date, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the application including wasted costs assessed summarily if not agreed.
26 Jul 2016

EVERGREEN (FIC) LTD v. GOLDEN CUP INDUSTRIES LTD t/a SUPER STAR GROUP

Citation

EVERGREEN (FIC) LTD v. GOLDEN CUP INDUSTRIES LTD t/a SUPER STAR GROUP
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT14/2015

Discretion to allow the late supplemental witness statement was exercised because the photographs were directly relevant and probative, a credible explanation for lateness was provided, and there was no serious prejudice as the photographs had been expressly described in the earlier witness statement; therefore leave to file was granted.
21 Jun 2013

LAW MAN WAI v. KWAN SAU SIM

Citation

LAW MAN WAI v. KWAN SAU SIM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2307/2009

Leave was granted because the supplemental statement largely comprised identification/tabulation of existing documentary evidence and brief responses to the plaintiff's evidence, involved limited new material, was unlikely to disrupt the trial or cause substantial prejudice, and any prejudice could be addressed by directions; nonetheless the late filing attracted an adverse costs order to the plaintiff.
21 Feb 2013

LEE BING CHUENG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

LEE BING CHUENG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1092/2010

The application was refused because the New Photo was a discoverable document available long before trial and its late disclosure was unjustified; admitting it at that late stage would cause irremediable prejudice to the plaintiff (expert could not prepare or be fairly re‑examined without adjournment) and the prejudice could not be adequately remedied, therefore dismissal and an award of costs to the plaintiff were required.
2 Feb 2011

CHAN WAI TAK v. CHIU KWOK KUEN

Citation

CHAN WAI TAK v. CHIU KWOK KUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP899/2010

The judge accepted the plaintiff's witnesses and documentary evidence (the defendant's email and his admission) as truthful and reliable, rejected the defendant's denials and late-produced immigration record for inexcusable delay, and found beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant breached his undertaking by attending and participating in the business of Fosan Wealthypond, constituting contempt of court.
2 Mar 2001

HO MOH v. TAM YIU KEUNG t/a YIU SUN CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO. AND ANOTHER

Citation

HO MOH v. TAM YIU KEUNG t/a YIU SUN CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1251/1998

The Master exercised his discretion to maintain a 40% deduction of the defendants' recoverable costs because despite the defendants' late disclosure of surveillance tapes, the plaintiff had medical reports indicating exaggeration and the late disclosure caused extra expense (an additional witness); accordingly the costs order is amended so that costs from 19 November 1999 are payable to the defendants but subject to a 40% deduction; the plaintiff is awarded costs for the costs application hearing.