Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admission of documents

Legal area

Court

15 Oct 2024

練碧儂對李秀瓊

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1752
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1409/2021

The court allowed admission of the Housing Department complaints procedure notice and the correspondence because their content was not evidently irrelevant and paragraph 15 of the plaintiff's supplementary witness statement referred to them and the defendant did not apply to strike that paragraph; the court refused admission of medical reports and receipts because they were not shown to be relevant to the issues and proof of causation would require expert evidence and formal expert reports; because the application was late the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant costs of HK$5,000 immed…
23 Jul 2013

FOELAN WONG v. WONG TZE KIN

Citation

FOELAN WONG v. WONG TZE KIN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2650/2011

Grant leave for the 3rd Supplemental Statement because the matters are relevant, not new, draft was provided two weeks before trial, no unjust prejudice to plaintiff (can deal at examination-in-chief), and admission will promote efficient trial; allow inclusion of Bundle D2 because documents are largely known or attached and necessary to consider the supplemental statement; refuse to exclude the Gold Deal Documents and Telephone Bills before trial because authenticity and weight are issues for trial evidence and exclusion at this stage would be prejudicial to the interests of justice; allocat…
15 Sept 2010

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

Citation

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC27/2010

The Court granted leave to appeal selectively on the grounds articulated: leave was granted where arguable points of law or potential substantial and grave injustice were shown (including misapplication of the proviso, wrongful admission of documents, failure to review facts, and questions about whistle‑blowing obligations), and the prosecution was granted leave to appeal the quashing of Ms Fan's conviction on Charge 1 to argue consistency between Charge 2 and Charge 1 outcomes.
15 Sept 2010

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

Citation

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC28/2010

The Court granted leave to appeal to the specified applicants largely under the substantial and grave injustice limb of s.32(2), and in one instance also under the point of law limb, because arguable errors existed concerning admitted evidence, factual inferences (including tacit agreement and post‑conspiracy conduct), application of the proviso and a legal point about whistle‑blower obligations for non‑director employees; the grants were for the limited purpose of permitting those issues to be fully argued before the Court of Final Appeal, not to decide guilt or liability at this stage.
15 Sept 2010

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

Citation

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC30/2010

The Court granted leave to appeal to the specified applicants predominantly under the substantial and grave injustice limb (and in Rahman's case also on the point of law limb) to permit full consideration of claimed errors: factual mistakes about documentary evidence of the Executive Committee's purpose, wrongful admission of internal bank documents under the co-conspirators rule, incorrect inferences of tacit agreement and guilty knowledge, improper imposition of a whistle-blower duty on a non-director, and misapplication of the proviso; the prosecution was granted leave to appeal the quashi…
25 Feb 2010

BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LTD v. WU YI DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LTD v. WU YI DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1957/2005

The application to admit the New Documents was refused because the Big Island Parties failed to provide any credible explanation for the lateness and, in any event, the documents did not materially advance the issues before the court; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to exclude late discovery in accordance with the continuing duty of disclosure and proportionality.
22 Feb 2010

BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LTD v. WU YI DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LTD v. WU YI DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1957/2005

Application to admit the purported fax was refused because the Wu Yi parties failed to provide a credible affidavit explanation for the inordinate delay and admission would have caused serious disruption and prejudice to the trial.
5 Jul 2005

LO KAI BUN v. PONG MAN YI AND OTHERS

Citation

LO KAI BUN v. PONG MAN YI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4700/2002

The documents are admissible because they are relevant to whether the plaintiff knew the nature and effect of the original transfers, but the Defendants must provide particulars of knowledge (including the main constituents of the new documents) before using them; the plaintiff is entitled to time to consider and respond (including amending pleadings and filing witness statements); cross-examination on those documents is deferred until the plaintiff is prepared; lateness may be addressed by costs and adjournment.
1 Jul 1986

CLUETT H.K. LIMITED t/a SIX CONTINENTS v. HERCULES KNITTERS LIMITED

Citation

CLUETT H.K. LIMITED t/a SIX CONTINENTS v. HERCULES KNITTERS LIMITED
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV33/1986

Once an applicant for admission under O.38 r.25 establishes a specified reason (here, maker beyond the seas) and that reason is not challenged, the Rules leave no residual discretion to exclude the hearsay statements; accordingly the trial judge's order admitting the documents was upheld. However, the trial judge erred in ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the adjournment; costs of the adjournment should follow the event and the plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs of the adjournment.
12 Oct 1977

BUD-BURMA INCORPORATED v. GOUGAR SHIRTS LTD

Citation

BUD-BURMA INCORPORATED v. GOUGAR SHIRTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA740/1977

Documents were admitted because the makers were abroad and the defendant had had opportunity to verify the materials; failure to serve the hearsay notice did not justify exclusion in the circumstances but warranted an allocation of costs and conditional protection against future wasted costs if plaintiff persisted.