Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Relevance

  • 29 May 2025

    LAM KIN CHUNG v. SOKA GAKKAI INTERNATIONAL OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 2244
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2355/2023

    The Court struck out the Challenged Evidence because it was irrelevant and scandalous to the core issues of the petition: there was no evidential linkage between the Petitioner’s prior civil actions (2011-2012) and the Committee’s later adoption of the Refusal Register (2018) and Communication Restrictions (2022); the Respondents produced no evidence showing when the Committee became aware of those actions, what was discussed, or any resolutions, and the material consisted largely of bad character allegations and submissions contrary to directions. Given the lack of relevance and potential to…

  • 23 Apr 2025

    HU QINQIN trading under the name or style of \'FOOT PUNCTURE\' (a firm) v. ACTION GAIN LTD

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 1675
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1522/2020

    The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because none of the grounds had a reasonable prospect of success; the Draft Report lacked probative value and did not satisfy the necessary conditions for admitting expert evidence on quantum, and the judge’s case management exercise was not shown to be plainly wrong or an error of principle.

  • 20 Sept 2024

    練碧儂 對 李秀瓊

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 1564
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ1409/2021

    法院撤銷原告之雙方傳票申請，理由為所指向之房屋署署長非本案當事人且未被送達雙方傳票，且申請所求之簽到簿記錄與本案實質爭點無關；因此申請不成，並命令原告即時支付被告訟費HK$1,500。

  • 10 Jan 2023

    KWOK WAI FUNG v. CHINA GAS HOLDINGS LTD

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 83
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1964/2014

    The appeal is dismissed because the Plaintiffs failed to show prima facie that the redacted parts of the Minutes were relevant to any properly pleaded issue; the information sought concerned other grantees and at best would be material for cross‑examination or lead to impermissible fishing, was not necessary for a fair disposal of the cause nor for saving costs, and the central contested issue is whether Mr Xu made the representation to the Board rather than the Board's unsupported belief; therefore discovery of the unredacted Minutes is refused.

  • 10 Jan 2023

    KWOK WAI FUNG v. CHINA GAS HOLDINGS LTD

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 83
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1965/2014

    The appeal was dismissed because the redacted portions of the Minutes were not shown to be relevant to any properly pleaded issue, would be at most material for impeachment of credit and therefore constituted impermissible fishing, and were not necessary for the fair disposal of the matter or for saving costs; the central issue is whether Mr Xu made the representation, not the identities or positions of other grantees.

  • 1 Jun 2022

    ZHENG YANQIU 對 NEW WORLD FIRST BUS SERVICES LTD

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 1626
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCPI128/2021

    The court held that documents from the regional court action are likely relevant to the High Court dispute on the claimant's health and income; there was no evidence that medical expert reports or amended schedules existed so disclosure of those items could not be ordered, but witness statements and court orders were either likely to exist or obtainable and therefore the claimant was ordered to disclose them within 28 days or to swear an affidavit/non-religious oath explaining whether such documents are or were in her possession, custody or control and, if not, when and what happened to them.

  • 9 Mar 2021

    CHOW KIN HANG ALI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE DEPARTMENT

    Citation
    [2021] HKDC 360
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEC1413/2019

    The summons for specific discovery was dismissed: communications between the respondent and the Department of Justice are protected by legal professional privilege and cannot be ordered produced; the other requested documents were refused because the application was vague, imprecise and oppressive (voluminous and unspecified) and the documents were not relevant or necessary for disposing fairly of the employees' compensation claim under the without-fault statutory scheme.

  • 21 Oct 2020

    香港特別行政區 訴 羅少韓及另一人

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 2673
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA579/2019

    The court held that the facts in Kearley differ materially from this case; the 'Guo' conversation was admissible because it was tendered not for the truth of its content but to prove the fact it was uttered and to provide contextual evidence of the speaker's knowledge and role in triad activity; established principles on relevance and hearsay permit such use; therefore no question of law of wide public importance suitable for certification under s32 arose.

  • 26 Nov 2019

    HKSAR v. CHEUNG MAN KIT AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2860
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC236/2018

    The court held that expert evidence by a police officer on the workings of illicit retail drug operations and the specialised jargon used may be admissible if the witness demonstrates sufficient qualifications, independence and a transparent factual and methodological basis, and if the evidence is necessary to assist the jury and its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect; the trial judge must tightly delineate scope and impose limiting directions to prevent overreach or substitution of jury fact‑finding.

  • 3 Apr 2019

    MAGNUS LEONARD ROTH v. VITALY ORLOV AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 875
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2753/2017

    Grant discovery only where prima facie case is established; apply relevance broadly but avoid fishing; here the court ordered limited discovery confined to Stephenson Harwood advice/instructions relevant to the alternate director issue (Item 6) and refused wider requests such as documents evidencing the Katla sale to MTF as not sufficiently relevant or too broad; where there is reason to believe further undisclosed documents exist the party themselves must swear an affidavit addressing possession custody or power and disposition of such documents.