Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Video conferencing evidence

Legal area

Court

3 Sept 2024

AD (also known as AT) v. RT

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2329
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC1/2022

The application was dismissed because the witness failed to establish a sound reason to depart from the general rule of in‑court testimony; the witness's evidence is crucial and credibility will be heavily disputed, and permitting VCF would risk prejudice to the respondent in cross-examination and undermine the solemnity and effectiveness of the trial, so the court exercised its discretion to refuse VCF and ordered costs nisi against the petitioner.
31 Jul 2023

PACIFIC BULK SUPRAMAX CO LTD v. WONG MAN KAM PATRICK AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1973
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1632/2021

VCF was refused and a part-heard adjournment was refused because in contempt proceedings where alleged dishonesty and credibility of the alleged contemnor are central, physical attendance in court is necessary to preserve the solemnity of the process and avoid prejudice; given the verified medical incapacity to travel, the proper course was to vacate and refix the trial no earlier than 1 September 2023; costs thrown away arising from the adjournment are to be borne by the defendants, with specific summary assessments for the summons and wasted hearing costs.
6 Jul 2023

OCI CAPITAL LTD v. LANHAI INTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1804
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1499/2019

The amendment was refused because it raised a new, unparticularised allegation that the 2nd Defendant entered the Oral Agreement through an agent; the plaintiffs offered no adequate explanation for the late application; the lack of particulars and the defendants' inability to obtain instructions or evidence from a key person (Mr Mi), who is uncontactable and under investigation, created real prejudice. The VCF application was allowed only for the 2nd Defendant whose travel is presently prohibited by mainland authorities, but refused for the other witness (Ms Lu) because the evidence did not s…
19 Jan 2023

EGNER DAVID PARKS AND OTHERS v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 351
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA247/2014

The summons for leave to take evidence by VCF was dismissed: the 4th Plaintiff's deliberate failure to meet entry vaccination requirements and Mr Gardner's business convenience do not amount to sound reasons to depart from the norm of in‑court testimony; their evidence is contested on credibility; the application was late without adequate explanation and caused prejudice, so VCF was refused.
19 Jan 2023

EGNER DAVID PARKS AND OTHERS v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 351
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA245/2014

Application dismissed because applicants failed to provide a sound reason to depart from the in-person rule: the 4th Plaintiff's voluntary failure to meet entry vaccination requirements and the witness's business convenience are inadequate; both witnesses face contested credibility issues that require the court's solemn atmosphere; the application was late and unexplained, causing prejudice to case management.
14 Oct 2022

LIU HON WONG AND OTHERS v. LIU CHEE KWAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3157
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA953/2017

All three applications were dismissed because they were last-minute, lacked adequate explanatory affidavit evidence, departed from earlier confirmations in the plaintiffs' listing questionnaire that pleadings and discovery were complete, and would cause prejudice and real risk of derailing or prolonging the fixed trial. The absence of satisfactory justification for delay and the significant prejudice to defendants warranted refusal of amendment and late discovery; absence of direct evidence from the witness and his importance meant VCF was not justified. Indemnity costs were ordered against p…
21 Dec 2021

WONG LO KIN AND ANOTHER v. SUN KWONG METAL MANUFACTURER CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1602
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1813/2018

Given evolving and significant COVID-19 travel and quarantine restrictions rendering attendance from the USA impractical and the substantive dispute largely hinging on interpretation of written agreements rather than contested oral credibility, the court exercised its discretion to permit both identified witnesses to give evidence by VCF subject to specified safeguards; the late application was noted and costs of the application were ordered in the cause on a nisi basis.
1 Dec 2021

SETO SHA LI v. LAI JIN TONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3561
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1442/2016

Leave was granted for Lai Lap Ming to give oral evidence by VCF because his residence in Taiwan, the requirement of 35 days quarantine if he were to travel, and overlapping Taiwan civil and criminal proceedings during that quarantine constituted good reasons justifying VCF; the court found no serious prejudice to the other parties and the balance of fairness and efficiency favored VCF.
16 Jun 2021

HERAEUS LTD v. CHAN YUN MUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1849
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA878/2011

The application was refused because it was taken out late without adequate explanation, the sole reason (quarantine would jeopardise the witness's work) was insufficient to displace the presumption in favour of in-person evidence, and the witness's evidence was not merely peripheral but sought to address substantive disputed issues that engage credibility, so exercise of discretion to permit VCF was inappropriate.
30 Sept 2010

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA954/2005

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the Indian law material was unsourced and outdated, documentary evidence showed the 3rd defendant had participated in meetings remotely and there was no proof he could not schedule meetings to avoid trial, and the medical evidence did not show incapacity to travel; mere convenience was insufficient to justify video evidence.