Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to file affidavit

Legal area

Court

3 Mar 2025

LICKSUN COMPANY LTD v. Occupiers of Sub-Section 2 of Section B of Lot No 1016 in DD19 which is also known as DD19 LOT No 1016 B2 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 372
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2829/2023

The court refused to enter final or interlocutory judgment because the plaintiff's pleaded case was shadowy and insufficiently particularised, there was no clear evidence of the plaintiff's existence or of service of the Summons, and the plaintiff's representative could not satisfactorily explain the case; accordingly the appropriate course was to adjourn the Summons sine die with liberty to restore and permit both parties to file affidavit evidence rather than enter judgment in the defendant's absence.
26 Mar 2024

RE YU PUN HOI

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 922
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB6118/2023

The summonses were dismissed and the adjournment refused because the applications were made very late without credible explanation, the Petitioner would suffer substantial prejudice from late evidence, the new evidence was of little probative value and raised credibility concerns, the Debtor had ample time and legal representation to present relevant evidence earlier, and there was no real prospect that further time would enable the Debtor to establish that the Petitioner’s security covered the petitioning debt; indemnity costs were ordered due to the dilatory conduct.
26 May 2022

RE ZPMC-RED BOX ENERGY SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1648
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW368/2021

The Court granted leave to RBF to file Adkins 2nd because the affidavit raised directly relevant and probative matters that were not outweighed by considerations of delay or prejudice; the exceptional-circumstances limb of O.32 r.11A(4) did not preclude admission in these circumstances; the Petitioner was given 14 days to file a response.
18 May 2021

YOICHI KUGA v. SARONIC HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1335
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1180/2018

Plaintiff failed to establish misrepresentation, non‑disclosure or sufficient evidence of breach of trust or dishonest assistance by defendant and failed to show defendant cannot suffer loss; no significant change of circumstances was proved; therefore release of the USD 1,000,000 fortification was refused while leave to file the 4th affidavit was granted.
18 Dec 2020

YE XIUXIA v. YE JINXIANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 115
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP754/2019

The application for leave to rely on the 3rd affirmation was dismissed because the 1st defendant had already filed a substantive 2nd affirmation replying to the plaintiff's 3rd affirmation, the defendants failed to explain the delay, and the late, eleventh‑hour application amounted to abuse of process; accordingly the 3rd affirmation is not admissible, limited leave was granted only to file a solicitor affidavit exhibiting the Final Account, and costs were awarded personally against the defendants on an indemnity basis.
23 Jun 2015

柯 v. 龔

Citation

柯 v. 龔
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC12807/2013

Summons to file the affidavit was dismissed because the sworn affidavit was put on the court file without leave, was procedurally and substantively inappropriate (did not address Section 7 factors), failed to comply with FDR and case management requirements, and the solicitor offered no satisfactory explanation for filing; costs ordered and separate hearing directed on wasted costs application.
23 Sept 2011

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF THE SEA RANCH v. CAMPOENT DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF THE SEA RANCH v. CAMPOENT DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1847/2010

The appeal was allowed and the Master's refusal set aside because the ten-month delay was not excessive in the absence of demonstrated prejudice or unfairness to the defendant, the proposed affirmation contained relevant material necessary for disclosure, and the defendant failed to substantiate that a substantial dispute or procedural inefficiency justified refusal of leave; accordingly leave to file the second affirmation was granted and costs up to and including 29 July were ordered against the plaintiff.
23 Sept 2011

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF THE SEA RANCH v. JOYFUL INTEREST LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF THE SEA RANCH v. JOYFUL INTEREST LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1845/2010

The appeal was allowed and the Master's order refusing leave was set aside because the 10 month delay was not excessive, no prejudice to the defendant was shown, and the defendant's assertions of substantial factual dispute were not substantiated; accordingly leave was granted to file the affirmation and costs up to and including 29 July 2011 were ordered against the plaintiff.
23 Sept 2011

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF THE SEA RANCH v. JOYFUL INTEREST LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF THE SEA RANCH v. JOYFUL INTEREST LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1846/2010

The appeal was allowed and the Master's refusal set aside because the 10‑month delay was not inordinate, the materials were relevant, and the defendant did not demonstrate prejudice or unfairness from granting leave to file the second affirmation; therefore leave should be granted to permit disclosure for just disposal.