Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Supplemental witness statements

Legal area

Court

11 Apr 2025

IMPERIAL PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL (CNMI), LLC v. CHAN CHI HUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1511
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA75/2018

The court allowed the late filing of the new witness statement and supplemental documents because the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the material was relevant to central issues and admitting it would assist the just resolution of the dispute while allowing the plaintiff adequate time to respond; because the defendant sought an indulgence, the defendant was ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis, to be summarily assessed with specified filing timelines.
7 Apr 2025

POLO COURT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TENY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 629
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2134/2020

The Court refused to determine the defendant's application in the absence of a draft supplemental witness statement and made an unless order: defendant must issue an inter partes summons with a draft supplemental witness statement and an affirmation by 4 pm on 15 April 2025 or be debarred from applying to file or serve supplemental witness statements before trial; the Court accepted the adoption of Norman Chang's witness statement as evidence-in-chief following plaintiff's withdrawal of its objection.
16 Jul 2024

TANG FOOK WING v. TANG CHUN KEE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1873
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1294/2014

Both supplemental witness statements were inadmissible, irrelevant and non‑probative: the 2nd SWS primarily contained impermissible opinion, credibility assessments and hypothetical illustrations without personal knowledge of the specific events and thus could not rebut or undercut D7's statements; the 3rd SWS was redundant because contemporaneous video recordings addressing competence were available and competence was not in issue. Accordingly the Master's order allowing filing was set aside and both summonses dismissed.
22 Mar 2024

CHOW LILY v. CHOW WAI WAI VIOLET AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 887
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP22/2019

The court held that paragraphs 275–278, 302–308 and 310 of the plaintiff's supplemental witness statement were expunged because they were not relevant to the primary issues in the probate action and did not materially affect the credibility or objectivity of the independent witnesses; the probative value was insufficient and the matters were speculative and collateral, risking undue complexity and unfairness. Paragraphs 311 (and its heading) and 321 were allowed to remain as they were relevant to the primary issues or to the credibility issues with an adequate foundation. The appeal was there…
6 Jun 2023

CHUBB LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD (formerly known as ACE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD) v. CHAN CHRISTY

Citation

[2023] HKDC 816
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4461/2019

Leave to file the 3rd Supplemental Witness Statement was granted only insofar as it records the plaintiff's attempts to contact Hans and Alex and their confirmations (paras 1–17, pages 1–5 of exhibit CSC-4) because that evidence is relevant and not prejudicial; leave was refused for Chow's personal views and adoption of Hans' and Alex's statements (paras 8–49, pages 6–48) because those portions are of little or marginal probative value, were raised too late, and would unfairly prejudice the defendant and require further investigation and evidence, defeating cost-effectiveness and fairness.
9 Dec 2022

LAU SUK HAN LORETTA v. LI FUNG MING KRIZIA

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 121
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI859/2016

The court granted leave to adduce the supplemental witness statements of the plaintiff and the named witnesses (Luk Hiu Ming, Wong Fook Lam and Lai) subject to terms, but dismissed the application for leave in respect of the proposed witness statement of an unidentified witness; costs of the summons were awarded to the 1st defendant to be taxed if not agreed.
24 Nov 2022

LAU LAI SHAN LISA v. ZHANG QI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3591
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1992/2019

The court allowed admission of parts of the Plaintiff's supplemental evidence that were direct narration of facts and of probative value (Lau 5th except paragraphs 31–64; Lau Senior 3rd Supplemental in full) but refused to admit material that constituted argument, submissions or matters outside personal knowledge (notably extensive parts of Lau 6th Supplemental and paragraphs 31–64 of Lau 5th). The court refused leave to adduce the handwriting expert report because the proposed expert evidence was unnecessary to resolve the core contested issues, was late with inadequate explanation, would be…
15 Nov 2022

ECHELLES RIFFIAUD S.A. v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3486
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1841/2011

The summons was dismissed and leave to file the 3rd supplemental witness statement and 2nd supplemental list of documents refused because the applicant's delay was inordinate and inexcusable and admission would cause gross prejudice and disruption to the defendant and the trial timetable.
14 Jul 2022

CHARM MASTER ENTERPRISES LTD v. GRAND T G GOLD HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2137
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA397/2011

The court declined to order summary assessment of costs against D2 for the Plaintiff's summons because the dispute was essentially case management and taxation was unavoidable elsewhere; it held that costs of D2's amended summons (including the hearing) should be in the cause while costs of and occasioned by the amendments (including costs of adducing the 2nd supplemental witness statement of Leung) should be borne by the Plaintiff and taxed if not agreed; the court awarded the Plaintiff 50% of the overall costs of the variation summons and a fixed payment of $25,000.
5 May 2022

YOE HAN YAUW v. YOE HAN HIAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1268
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1332/2018

Appeal allowed because signed supplemental witness statements were ultimately provided and, viewed broadly and in context, address the remaining issue (whether PRC land was partnership asset or held on trust), are relevant and admissible and would assist the court at trial; objections as to select inconsistencies or repetition are matters for trial; accordingly leave granted to file and serve the supplemental statements and the specified costs orders made.