Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Relevance and admissibility

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2022

KONG SAU HING ALICE v. YIP YUEN YEE PAMELA

Citation

[2022] HKDC 216
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1488/2018

The Court exercised case management powers to identify and order deletion/expungement of witness statement passages and documents considered irrelevant or inadmissible to the core issues (assault, self-defence, injury and damages), directed parties to file revised witness statements and a trimmed trial bundle within specified time limits, and held that costs attributable to including irrelevant materials should be borne by the parties themselves and not recoverable from the opponent (note to taxing master).
21 Mar 2019

KUNG KWOK WAI DAVID, THE EXECUTOR OF THE LAST WILL OF KUNG WONG SAU HIN, DECEASED v. THE COMMISSIONER OF ESTATE DUTY

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 788
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCED1/2011

Paragraphs 16–23 of the 8th Affidavit of David Kung and exhibit DK-64 were struck out because they were not responsive to the 4th Affirmation of Ip Mei Ching, were outside the scope of the leave granted by the September Order and related to a prospective, unmade variation application; paragraphs 36–42 of the 9th Affirmation of Lily Fenn and exhibits LF-38 to LF-42 were not struck out because they related to costs of prior litigation which may be relevant to the alleged debts, but their use is confined to the issue of costs and subject to trial judge directions; the subsequently filed 9th Affi…
28 Mar 2018

CECCHETTI SILVIA GIADA v. TSANG TAK YIP

Citation

[2018] HKDC 334
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ300/2015

The challenged material (the Subject Paragraphs and Dr Fong's witness statement) was struck out because it was irrelevant and immaterial to the core issue of whether the plaintiff held a 50% beneficial interest as a gift or on trust; allegations about sexual health, alleged misconduct and regulatory non-compliance do not make the gift claim more or less likely and admitting them would disproportionately prolong and complicate the trial contrary to the RDC's case-management objectives, therefore exclusion and costs against the plaintiff were warranted.
27 Oct 2016

THE LIQUIDATOR OF WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. YIP KWONG ROBERT AND OTHERS

Citation

THE LIQUIDATOR OF WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. YIP KWONG ROBERT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW735/2002

Subpoenas were set aside and the proposed evidence excluded because the application was made at an eleventh hour without satisfactory explanation for the lateness, the evidence lacked sufficient relevance (went only to credit and was not pleaded), and the transcript/materials were not shown to be subject to an implied undertaking preventing their earlier use; exclusion was appropriate without resolving the privilege point.
21 Apr 2015

MA CHEE WOON v. CHENG ZHEN SHU AND ANOTHER

Citation

MA CHEE WOON v. CHENG ZHEN SHU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1870/2013

Leave to adduce expert evidence relating to the current state of the land after the plaintiff's eviction in 2013 was refused because such evidence is not relevant to the determinative pleaded issue of adverse possession from 1983 to 2013; expert evidence is permitted only for the period 1980–2013 as relevant to the pleaded case; the applicant bears the burden to show relevance and the court must refuse manifestly irrelevant expert evidence.
10 Dec 2008

DAMON NEICH-BUCKLEY AND OTHERS v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

DAMON NEICH-BUCKLEY AND OTHERS v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA299/2006

The judge held that the impugned passages of Warham's WS and SWS were properly struck out because they went beyond permissible background, were irrelevant to the pleaded factual issues, and contained inadmissible opinion, hearsay, expert and legal submissions; accordingly the strike‑out summonses succeeded and paragraph 24 of Rhodes' statement was also struck out, with costs ordered against the plaintiffs.
17 Oct 2006

PREDIWAVE CORPORATION v. NEW WORLD TMT LTD

Citation

PREDIWAVE CORPORATION v. NEW WORLD TMT LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV292/2006

The Court of Appeal held that the Hong Kong court had jurisdiction under the Evidence Ordinance to give effect to the California letter of request; the request sought evidence for use at trial not pre-trial discovery; the relevance and admissibility of the documents are primarily matters for the US trial judge and the statements in the letter of request should be accepted except in the clearest cases; the descriptions of the documents were sufficiently particular but production should be limited to the specific HSBC account referenced in the US proceedings (account no. 4593340706838); bank co…
12 Oct 2005

SINGH BALWINDER v. SINO PHIL ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SINGH BALWINDER v. SINO PHIL ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC374/2005

The subpoena was set aside because it sought overly broad and vaguely described categories of documents from a non-party, amounting to an attempt to obtain discovery by fishing rather than compelling production of documents directly material to pleaded issues; the 2nd respondent failed to show the requested documents were sufficiently linked to issues in the pleadings and admissible; accordingly the subpoena was oppressive and vexatious and must be set aside, with costs awarded against the 2nd respondent.
3 Aug 1995

R. v. LAU MAN CHING & OTHER

Citation

R. v. LAU MAN CHING & OTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC581/1994

Although it was irregular to refer to prior consistent statements by PW7 and PW8, the references were not material to the fairness of the trial because the prosecutor's primary permissible purpose was to show A2 induced witnesses to lie; the irregularity did not engage s83(1) CPO and did not warrant overturning convictions; A1's nondisclosure complaint was also not shown to be material. Appeals dismissed.