Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Witness statements

Legal area

Court

12 Feb 2026

WU JUN v. CAPTAIN HOLDINGS LTD (In Compulsory Liquidation) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1063
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA106/2022

The court dismissed the interlocutory application as premature: the admissibility of Hu's witness statement cannot be finally determined before trial because Hu's attendance was uncertain but possible; Chan's statement should not be struck out because he may give admissible evidence based on documents and company records and the court should not engage in exhaustive line‑by‑line deletion pre-trial; costs follow the event.
9 Oct 2025

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4838
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1742/2018

The court refused the full 11‑week extension because there was no material change of circumstances: the Defendant's discovery was foreseeable and previously taken into account, and the late change of solicitors did not justify delay; a limited extension was granted to preserve the trial timetable and prevent further prejudice.
16 Jun 2025

EVROCHOICE INTERNATIONAL LTD v. SUPERSTAR INTERNATIONAL (GROUP) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2448
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA520/2023

The Court exercised its discretion to grant relief from sanction and a retrospective extension of time because the Xiang witness statement was in fact received by the Plaintiff (by fax) such that any prejudice was minimal, the consequences of striking out the statement would be disproportionate given the Defendant's substantive counterclaim and the apparent responsibility of solicitors for the procedural lapse; accordingly the Plaintiff's applications to expunge the Xiang WS and to expunge Attachment 1 were dismissed and the Xiang WS was deemed validly served.
25 Mar 2025

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. ATAL BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCT 3
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA2/2023

Consolidation was refused because the two proceedings, while overlapping in business activity and one common party, involve distinct facts and risk complicating a combined trial; an order that evidence from one trial stand in the other was refused until witness statements are served; the Commission must provide further and better particulars in the Originating Notice of Application of the proposed pecuniary penalty (amount and methodology including sales value, geographic area, financial years, gravity percentage, duration multiplier, aggravating/mitigating factors), particulars of investigat…
17 Mar 2025

MAN KWOK KEUNG TONY v. 馬德松

Citation

[2025] HKDC 469
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4385/2020

The court issued mandatory pre-trial directions: plaintiff to recompose and properly index and label trial bundles by specified deadline; parties may play audio recordings in court using their own devices; trial to proceed bilingually with translation dispensed; filed witness statements and expert reports may be adopted as evidence in chief; timetable for lodging written openings and authorities set; non-compliance may attract cost consequences.
14 Mar 2025

文直南及另一人對容海華及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 458
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4227/2022

The judge required strict compliance with Practice Direction 5.6 and exercised case management powers to set mandatory deadlines and content requirements for the trial bundle and exchanged materials; non-complying documents must be removed and meaningful indexing provided to enable efficient judicial review, and specified expert reports were accepted without attendance.
17 Jan 2025

FAN LIAN v. WONG KA KEUNG

Citation

[2025] HKDC 109
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC710/2022

The court granted leave because the three supplementary witness statements were relevant, material and necessary to answer new matters raised by the respondent and to fill gaps in the applicant's evidence; no prejudice or trial delay was demonstrated; permitting them serves fair and expeditious disposal and preserves case management; conversely, blanket leave for further reply statements was refused to avoid an endless cycle of evidence.
10 Jan 2025

GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 312
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2072/2018

The summons to file the supplemental witness statements and exhibits was dismissed because the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay, the proposed evidence was new and its high probative value was not demonstrated, and its admission would cause real prejudice to OSGH Parties that could not be remedied by costs or accommodated without adjournment; procedural fairness and case management outweigh the asserted need to admit the late material.
10 Jan 2025

GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 312
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2560/2018

The summons to admit supplemental witness statements and exhibits was dismissed because the applicants failed to give an acceptable explanation for inordinate delay; the proposed evidence contained new material of uncertain probative value that would cause real prejudice to the OSGH Parties and likely necessitate adjournment and further enquiries; balancing substantive and procedural fairness required refusal; costs were ordered against the applicants.
10 Jan 2025

GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 312
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2632/2018

The summons to admit supplemental witness statements and exhibits was dismissed because the applicants failed to provide an adequate explanation for inordinate delay, the proposed evidence contained new material that would cause real prejudice and likely require adjournment and inquiries that costs could not realistically remedy, and the asserted probative value (including post‑contract communications and adoption of technical material from a non‑testifying witness) was insufficient to outweigh procedural prejudice and disruption to trial; accordingly leave was refused and costs ordered to th…