Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pre-trial disclosure

Legal area

Court

5 Oct 2022

WONG YING GRACE v. DR. HO WING CHIU CLEMENT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3109
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI804/2017

The court dismissed the summons because the contested interrogatories were not necessary to dispose fairly of the cause or to save costs: the plaintiff's annual earnings were established by tax assessments and disclosed audited accounts, the defendants' queries (particularly on director's fees and absence days) were either fishing or matters properly left to trial cross-examination, and the necessity test for interrogatories was not met; costs were awarded to the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of HKD 525,000, without indemnity and without a certificate for two counsel.
6 Dec 2021

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SHUN CHI COURT v. CITI-PRO PROPERTY SERVICES COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 885
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2237/2019

Application dismissed because defendant failed to provide an affirmation explaining relevance and inability to disclose earlier, the documents were not self-explanatory and required further evidence to be meaningful, and admitting them at the start of trial would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff given defendant's unexplained delay and prior opportunities to raise the issues.
26 Apr 2021

HKSAR v. TAM TAK CHI

Citation

[2021] HKDC 506
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC927/2020

The particulars as drafted, when read with the Summary of Facts and available video footage, provided reasonable information under the Indictment Rules such that the defendant would not be prejudiced or embarrassed; therefore the application for further and better particulars was refused and the contested charges were not quashed.
29 Sept 2020

HKSAR v. NG KIT-HING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 787
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC869/2019

The District Court lacked statutory power to compel non-party witnesses to view defence evidence pre-trial and, even on an inherent jurisdiction basis, would not grant the order because doing so would be beyond the witnesses' obligations, risk compromising the integrity of their testimony, could be tactical and unfair to the co-defendant, and was unnecessary since the defence could approach witnesses directly and cross-examine at trial; therefore the application was dismissed.
15 May 2020

朱賽金對 PIZZAEXPRESS (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 302
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2731/2018

The affidavit filed without leave consisted largely of a schedule and exhibits that were either irrelevant to the trial issues or already part of the trial documents; the court lacks jurisdiction to investigate the plaintiff's complaints against third parties in this trial; therefore the Master’s order deleting the affidavit was justified and must be upheld, and the plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs related to that affidavit.
6 Mar 2020

香港特別行政區訴黎其豪

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1068
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA447/2019

The judge lawfully exercised discretion by considering the appellant's on‑scene statements, interview record and dashcam footage which collectively showed conduct and ambiguity sufficient to constitute a 'special reason' to refuse costs; there was no misdirection or irrationality in the judge's reasoning and the appeal is dismissed.
6 May 2016

WIDE POWER CORPORATION LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MANHATTAN COURT

Citation

WIDE POWER CORPORATION LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MANHATTAN COURT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1485/2013

The court allowed the defendant leave to adduce the additional witness statements and a supplemental expert report because the photographs show the posts sufficiently for the matter to be tested at trial, the plaintiff suffered no prejudice given the trial timetable and opportunity to file responsive expert evidence, and experts can assist the court by commenting on assumed facts or on the reliability of the defendant's materials.
24 Sept 2015

HKSAR v. EBERHARD BOVE CELIA GERTRUDE

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 763
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC498/2014

The prosecution must take all reasonable steps to identify and obtain material potentially relevant to defendants' knowledge from domestic and foreign agencies; given the defendants' backgrounds, apparent vulnerability and the outstanding disclosure issues, the court granted bail with conditions and vacated current trial fixtures pending satisfactory disclosure and further pre-trial hearings; additional reporting conditions were imposed for one defendant with prior record concerns.
11 Oct 2013

NG POK LEUNG AND ANOTHER v. NG POK MAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

NG POK LEUNG AND ANOTHER v. NG POK MAN AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2552/2012

The court exercised discretion to allow the late witness statements because they were relevant and probative to key factual issues, the delay was minimal and reasonably explained by recent discovery of documents, prejudice to defendants was manageable as they could file supplemental replies, and the shortness of time before trial meant no significant disruption would result.
18 Jun 2012

LIU KEITH CHE MING AND ANOTHER v. POON CHI SING t/a GOOD VIEW ORNAMENT

Citation

LIU KEITH CHE MING AND ANOTHER v. POON CHI SING t/a GOOD VIEW ORNAMENT
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2421/2010

Photographs disclosed in the defendant's lists of documents and referred to in a supplemental witness statement meant the plaintiffs were not unfairly surprised; the plaintiffs ought to have addressed the matter in their first witness evidence; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to refuse to exclude the photographs, refused to permit reopening of the plaintiffs' case, refused an additional supplemental expert report, and refused the subpoena; the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the costs of the application with a certificate for counsel.