Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

New evidence (ladd v marshall)

Legal area

Court

2 Sept 2025

DYNAMIC GAIN OPPORTUNITY LTD v. GE YIYANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3823
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA653/2024

The appeals are dismissed because the defendants failed to establish an arguable defence: the new evidence was inadmissible under Ladd v Marshall (no satisfactory explanation for lateness and not likely to affect outcome), there was no evidence of breach of any legal duty or of bad faith/deliberate injurious conduct by the plaintiffs, and economic duress/unconscionability were not made out; indemnity costs under the guarantee were awarded and summarily assessed.
7 Apr 2025

陳連元及另一人對友邦保險（國際）有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKDC 582
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5048/2020

Permission to appeal refused because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success: the limitation defence was properly considered after determining when the cause of action arose and the plaintiff had admitted knowledge of the counter-offer; the trial judge's factual findings were amply supported by evidence and not vitiated by error; the new documents failed the Ladd v Marshall tests and would not have affected the outcome; costs awarded to defendant and leave to adduce new evidence refused.
17 Sept 2024

XUE BORAN及另一人對 HUI CHI SUM及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2921
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2493/2018

The court refused the stay because all eight grounds of appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success and the newly produced documents and oral assertions did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria and in fact undermined the defendants' credibility; consequently the minimum threshold for granting a stay was not met and no discretionary reason to grant a stay was shown.
9 Aug 2024

HILL CONCEPT LTD v. YUEN TIN YUN

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1282
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4215/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal against the summary judgment had no reasonable prospect of success and there was no other reason in the interests of justice; the interlocutory appeals were out of time and the short unexplained delay did not justify an extension given the appeal was unarguable or academic; the costs order was lawful and summary assessment at HK$35,000 was appropriate.
23 Jan 2024

LEE TIM MUI 對 HUI SHU PANG

Citation

[2024] HKCA 29
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP181/2023

Leave to appeal and extension of time refused because the appellant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success: the trial judge's credibility and factual findings that the applicant was a licensee/manager for the company or its director until the company ceased to have capacity were supported by evidence; the 2002 winding-up material was not before the trial and would not, if admitted, materially alter the outcome and did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria; therefore no basis to overturn findings or grant leave.
24 Apr 2023

LEE TIM MUI 對 HUI SHU PANG

Citation

[2023] HKDC 496
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP33/2019

Leave to appeal refused because applicant failed to satisfy Ladd v Marshall conditions (no reasonable explanation why the 2002 order was not obtained for trial and the order would not have had decisive impact given the trial judge’s alternative and adverse factual findings), and there was no reasonable prospect of success or other compelling reason to hear the appeal.
8 Feb 2023

CHEN JINHUI v. WONG KAM SAN (黃錦新), by his guardian ad litem, HUANG YUEXIA (黃月霞) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 146
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV178/2021

The summons seeking a stay was dismissed. The Court held that the admissibility and inclusion of the Excluded New Evidence should be determined before the substantive appeal so that the Court of Appeal examines the judge's findings with the complete relevant evidence, having regard to fairness, expedition and administration of justice; delaying determination risks partial adjudication, inefficiency and further multiple proceedings.
16 Dec 2022

蔣立維對平安大樓業主立案法團

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1830
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP4/2022

The application for late permission to appeal was refused because the five-day delay lacked an acceptable explanation, the applicant's proposed grounds were repetitive and lacked any real prospect of success, there were no special grounds to admit new evidence, and no other reasons justified granting a hearing; accordingly the late leave application was dismissed and costs awarded to respondent.
13 Sept 2022

CHAN FOK YI (陳福如), THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHAN LI MUI (陳李妹), DECEASED 對古來勝

Citation

[2022] HKDC 965
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3158/2016

The application for late leave to appeal was refused because the applicant provided no explanation for a >28‑day delay and the proposed grounds of appeal and proffered new evidence did not demonstrate a real prospect of success (the new material either supported the trial findings or would not have materially altered the outcome and failed the Ladd v Marshall test); accordingly, the stay application was also dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff with a counsel's certificate.
25 May 2022

有關鄧添柱的事宜

Citation

[2022] HKCA 721
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV77/2021

The appeal is dismissed because the debts claimed are established by final court costs orders and are enforceable; the debtor's allegations concerning an illegal sale, conspiracy and proprietary interests were previously finally determined or irrelevant (issue estoppel) and therefore do not constitute a defence to the bankruptcy petition; the proposed fresh evidence fails the Ladd v Marshall criteria and is inadmissible.