Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Late evidence

Legal area

Court

5 Nov 2025

KWAN KWAI LIN AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG ON KI

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5265
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3013/2015

Leave was granted. The judge held that because the Court of Appeal remitted issues to a different judge, fresh evidence could be admitted; the Daughter's statement was short and probative, the Defendant could adequately respond within available time, there was insufficient prejudice or disruption to justify refusal, and the objectives of civil justice reform did not outweigh the need to decide the dispute on substantive merits. Accordingly admission was justified and conditional directions for a supplemental statement and costs were ordered.
14 May 2025

WONG MAN CHING, CHRISTINE, as executrix of the Estate of WONG TAI KIN, Deceased v. WONG YUNG MO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1936
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA305/2021

The court dismissed the defendants' applications to adduce the late witness statement of Eric Leung and the 3rd supplemental witness statement of the 1st defendant for lack of adequate explanation and because prejudice and potential disruption outweighed any marginal probative value; the court allowed only limited late disclosure (items 89–95 in the 4th Supplemental List) and ordered that the improperly filed Leung statement and the 3rd supplemental statement be expunged; defendants ordered to pay plaintiff's costs of the summons assessed at HK$63,050.
9 Feb 2024

RE MARSEN LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 492
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW465/2023

Winding up orders were made because the companies were deemed insolvent under s.178(1)(a) Cap.32 for failing to comply with statutory demands; the debt derived from an unsuspended contested judgment; the companies failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds (their alleged representations were unsubstantiated and contradicted by contemporaneous documents and the alleged undervalue of sale did not materially affect the debt position); late evidence and applications to file further affirmations were unjustified and prejudicial, so no adjournment was…
6 Jan 2023

FUNG SHING CHUNG v. CHOI KING HUNG

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 100
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2860/2018

The appeal is dismissed because Poon's witness statement was neither relevant to the core issues nor of probative value, its provenance and reliability were doubtful and unexplained, the Defendant failed to justify the long delay in producing the witness, and the application constituted a dilatory tactic contrary to case management objectives; admission would prejudice the efficient conduct of the case.
4 Jun 2018

INVEST GAIN LTD v. NOVEL GOOD LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1226
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA939/2013

The court admitted the three late emails because they were contemporaneous and on their face relevant and necessary to specific disputed issues, the explanation for lateness and the offer to mitigate prejudice (including recalling the witness) outweighed the prejudice to defendant, and there was no sufficient basis to adjourn or exclude them under the balancing exercise required by authority.
20 Apr 2018

吳大国對万洲国际有限公司

Citation

[2018] HKDC 409
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5830/2016

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because, although filed within the applicable 28‑day period, the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success: the late affidavits did not alter the conclusion that similarity of company names alone cannot impose liability on the defendant and service to the plaintiff's nominated address was effective; therefore leave was refused.
9 Mar 2017

RE CHEN CHERYL DEANNA

Citation

RE CHEN CHERYL DEANNA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB3082/2016

The court preferred the process server's credible evidence and found that the statutory demand was personally served on 18 March 2016; the petition (for HK$60,873.39) would have succeeded but for subsequent repayments which reduced the debt below the statutory threshold; accordingly petitioner entitled to costs up to and including 23 August 2016 (to be taxed if not agreed), no order as to costs for 24 August–26 September 2016, and an order nisi for costs after 26 September 2016 excluding costs relating to specified affidavits; certain affidavits were expunged and late evidence refused.
2 Aug 2012

SUBBA ALVIN also known as GURUNG YADAP CHANDRA v. HOUNG KEE (ASIA) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SUBBA ALVIN also known as GURUNG YADAP CHANDRA v. HOUNG KEE (ASIA) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI154/2010

The court refused leave to amend and to admit further orthopaedic and pain specialist evidence because the application was late, caused delay, breached the joint expert protocol, the new case was weak on its merits, and admitting it would be disproportionate and prejudicial contrary to CJR objectives; consequential costs were awarded against the plaintiff and a case management conference was ordered.
28 Jul 2011

LPK v. SH also known as HSC AND ANOTHER

Citation

LPK v. SH also known as HSC AND ANOTHER
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11930/2010

Leave to adduce the unsigned draft affirmation of Mr. Cai was refused because the 2nd Respondent failed to give a full and frank explanation for the late application, had previously filed an expert opinion (LYS) in compliance with directions, could have sought timely supplementation by the same expert, the draft was unsigned and untranslated, and admission would prejudice the Petitioner and risk delay contrary to case management obligations under the CJR.
3 Jun 2009

SO CHEUK YI v. PANG HARLING HARRY

Citation

SO CHEUK YI v. PANG HARLING HARRY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI526/2007

The court exercised its case management discretion to exclude the late psychiatric evidence because it was filed too late, the plaintiff's former solicitors had failed to comply with pre-trial directions, the proposed additional diagnosis was not firmly established, and admitting it would prejudice the defendant; the case must proceed on the original Statement of Damages and existing quantum evidence.