Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admission of additional evidence

Legal area

Court

4 Feb 2022

WLK by MYW her next friend v. CCIW AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKFC 26
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP176/2019

The applicant was in immediate need and, on the evidence available, it was likely she would be entitled to provision; interim monthly payments of HK$12,095 (after Old Age Allowance) from the estate should be paid from 9 September 2019 pending final determination. The court would not order the wife to remain rent‑free in the property and refused to admit the Opponents' late additional evidence under the Ladd v Marshall test.
29 Nov 2021

香港特別行政區訴羅興娟

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3579
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA468/2019

The court refused the s32 certificate because the issues raised were essentially disputes of fact resolved by the magistrate after careful consideration of CCTV and witness evidence; the applicant's medical report did not undermine the credibility of the prosecution case or indicate any legal point of general importance; there was no substantial or serious unfairness to justify certification.
13 Sept 2021

JEANNY HELENA FRANSLAY v. HUNG MAY YEE ANITA

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1324
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV600/2020

Given the amendments to the notices of appeal, the applications to adduce additional evidence and the related bankruptcy appeals, the court exercised its discretion to order further security limited to the additional costs caused by those changes; taking into account the overlap between appeals and reduction in scope from amendments, a further total security of HKD 150,000 (HKD 75,000 payable by each Debtor) was reasonable and ordered.
2 Aug 2018

YANG FOO-OI by LEUNG PING CHIU, ROY her next friend v. WAI WAI CHEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1825
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1739/2010

The court refused to manage the case on the basis of a hypothetical or not-yet-advanced challenge to the validity of the Deed and rejected the defendants' suggested procedural alternatives that would permit them to run inconsistent cases or to remit the matter back to the Court of Appeal; the Court emphasized it will determine the locus and joinder summonses on their merits and will not tolerate avoidable delay.
11 Apr 2018

香港特別行政區訴 YULIANI

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 707
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA571/2017

The court upheld the trial judge's acceptance of the identification evidence as reliable based on distance, lighting, prolonged observation and witness familiarity, found the evidence sufficient to support conviction for breach of stay conditions, and refused admission of fresh testimony or unsubstantiated additional photographs on appeal.
5 Feb 2016

HKSAR v. TO KIT YAN

Citation

HKSAR v. TO KIT YAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC43/2014

The plea was repeatedly confirmed while the applicant was represented, the evidence (admissions and physical recovery of heroin pellets) overwhelmingly supports the conviction, the applicant provided no adequate explanation for delay, and the additional material does not undermine safety of the conviction; therefore leave to appeal against conviction out of time is refused.
21 Jan 2016

SUM CHEUNG WAI v. TSUI HIN YUET

Citation

SUM CHEUNG WAI v. TSUI HIN YUET
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA640/2014

The summons was dismissed because the defendant provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay in making a formal application, the proposed evidence lacked sufficient relevance, and its admission would unfairly embarrass the plaintiff by entangling him in detailed accounting matters; costs of the application were awarded to the plaintiff.
31 Oct 2012

CHOI CHUNG BUN VINCENT v. AUSTRALIA CHINA HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

CHOI CHUNG BUN VINCENT v. AUSTRALIA CHINA HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV263/2011

The Court held that because the merits of the defendant's defence had been adequately disclosed before the master and the later affidavit added little, the defendant was entitled to costs of the successful appeal; however, because the defendant lost the jurisdictional challenge which consumed substantial hearing time and a short hearing before the judge would likely have been necessary, the proper exercise of discretion required apportionment — awarding the defendant 50% of the costs of the appeal before the judge and 50% of the costs of this appeal, while leaving the orders requiring the def…
6 Dec 2005

LEUNG KAM TONG AND ANOTHER v. ITALY LEONE INTERNAIONAL GROUP (ASIA) LTD

Citation

LEUNG KAM TONG AND ANOTHER v. ITALY LEONE INTERNAIONAL GROUP (ASIA) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2415/2005

Leave was refused and the originating motion dismissed because the applicant failed to satisfactorily explain the delay in filing out of time and because the additional evidence was properly refused by the Registrar as it would not have materially added to the opponent's case, meaning the proposed appeal had little prospect of success.
13 Nov 2002

KEN FORWARD ENGINEERING LTD. v. WELTIME HONG KONG LTD.

Citation

KEN FORWARD ENGINEERING LTD. v. WELTIME HONG KONG LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV321/2002

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to adduce or properly present the critical evidence of solicitor negligence at the hearing, had actual or constructive awareness of the delay, proceeded on an impecuniosity basis, and the proposed grounds of appeal lack any realistic prospect of success or do not demonstrate the arbitrator was plainly wrong; further, jurisdictional objections were not timely raised.