Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Admission of fresh evidence on appeal

  • 15 Apr 2026

    HE WEI v. ZHAO JIANGONG

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 1886
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA732/2025

    Because the Writ was validly served in Hong Kong the defendant bore a very high burden which he did not discharge: the evidence indicated the intended and actual place of performance and significant dealings (fund transfer, conversion, investment and repayments) were connected to Hong Kong, there is a good arguable case Hong Kong law applies, the Beijing proceedings were commenced late and appear tactical and unrelated to the claimed sums, and the fresh evidence was inadmissible; accordingly Hong Kong is the appropriate forum and the stay and new evidence applications were dismissed.

    • Forum non conveniens
    • Service of process
    • Choice of law
    • Admission of fresh evidence on appeal
    • Jurisdiction
    • Bank transfers

  • 12 Mar 2026

    有關陳祺豐的事宜

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 392
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV53/2025

    The court refused all substantive interlocutory applications: it declined to admit the proffered post‑judgment documents as new evidence because they were irrelevant to the debt finding; declined transcript and disclosure applications as inappropriate on appeal or properly directed to the trial court; refused to grant a stay or a protective costs order as there were no arguable grounds or public interest justification; validated the judicial officer's case management directions under statutory appointment; concluded the debtor's repeated, overlapping and unfounded applications amounted to abu…

    • Bankruptcy order
    • Stay of execution
    • Admission of fresh evidence on appeal
    • Disclosure during appeal
    • Protective costs order
    • Case management directions

  • 16 Feb 2026

    ANGELA CHEN v. WAI WAI CHEN

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 266
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV305/2024

    The Court dismissed the bulk of the defendant's applications for leave to appeal and to adduce new evidence because the original discovery against a non‑party was properly refused as premature and/or for lack of necessity and precision, affirmations established non‑existence or lack of power to produce many documents, and the fresh evidence did not meet the special grounds for admission on appeal; limited leave was granted only on a narrow point (Ground 6(3)) concerning whether deployment of the SD waived privilege for certain CHW‑12 materials and only to that specified issue.

    • Discovery against non‑parties
    • Legal professional privilege
    • Leave to appeal interlocutory orders
    • Admission of fresh evidence on appeal
    • Case management discretion
    • Waiver of privilege

  • 30 Jan 2026

    CHINA TRENDS HOLDINGS LTD v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 95
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV425/2021

    The Court held that the Review Committee did expressly consider the HK$100 million standby facility and reasonably concluded, on the qualitative assessment required by GEM Rule 17.26, that the facility would not enable sufficient improvement in the applicant's concentrated low‑margin trading business to warrant continued listing; accordingly leave to judicially review was refused and the appeal dismissed. The Court also refused to admit the 2023 evidence as irrelevant to whether the decision‑maker had taken the facility into account.

    • Wednesbury unreasonableness
    • Gem listing rule 17.26
    • Delisting of listed companies
    • Admission of fresh evidence on appeal
    • Judicial review leave application

  • 23 Dec 2025

    CHAN YAU YAM v. DR HO SAI CHEUNG

    Citation
    [2025] HKDC 2130
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI2438/2024

    On objective interpretation, JSM’s 6 August 2025 letter and the Notice of Acceptance plainly and unconditionally accepted the Re-Amended Sanctioned Offer under Order 22 r16(1); the accompanying draft consent summons merely proposed additional terms for the Plaintiff’s consideration and did not render the acceptance conditional or equivocal; the Master had jurisdiction under Practice Direction 18.1 para 116 to determine the procedural dispute at the CLR hearing; the Plaintiff’s fresh affirmations were excluded because they were further evidence and failed Ladd v Marshall (not likely to affect…

    • Sanctioned offer (order 22)
    • Acceptance of offer
    • Consent summons
    • Stay of proceedings
    • Admission of fresh evidence on appeal
    • Interpretation of documents

  • 17 Oct 2025

    HKSAR v. GUNAWAN, INDRA

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 5615
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA39/2025

    The magistrate and rehearing judge accepted the appellant received the Section 6 notice and failed to notify the Director within the statutory 10-day period (notification occurred on 16 October 2024, after the 12 October 2024 deadline); the appellant failed to prove the notice did not come to his personal attention without neglect and offered no adequate explanation for withholding the photograph at the review hearing; accordingly the magistrate's refusal to vary the section 8(1) Order was correct and the appeal is dismissed.

    • Fixed penalty notices
    • Service and notice
    • Obstruction in public places
    • Admission of fresh evidence on appeal
    • Language/interpretation issues

  • 15 Oct 2025

    香港特別行政區 訴 劉建華

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 5610
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA8/2025

    Dashcam footage, corroborated by witness evidence, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant sequentially cut from the left-fourth lane into the third lane and then into the second lane without reassessing risk or ensuring sufficient space, causing the collision; the cautioned statement was voluntary and admissible; the post-trial material was either waived at trial or failed the test for fresh evidence; accordingly the conviction for careless driving under Cap.374 s38(1) is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

    • Careless driving
    • Voluntariness of confession
    • Admission of fresh evidence on appeal
    • Appellate standard of review (retrial)

  • 26 Sept 2025

    MARINA BAY SANDS PTE LTD v. TSANG YEUK KWAN

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 4558
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA195/2025

    The New Evidence was inadmissible because it was not genuinely newly arisen after the Order, D and his Singapore advisers had prior knowledge (April Letter), there was unjustified delay and inequitable conduct in withholding the materials, exclusion did not amount to a travesty of justice, and consequently the Stay Summons lacked foundation because D failed to identify an available Singapore forum clearly more appropriate and did not discharge the heavy burden for an FNC stay.

    • Forum non conveniens
    • Stay of proceedings
    • Exclusive/asymmetric jurisdiction clause
    • Admission of fresh evidence on appeal
    • Summary judgment
    • Pre-action protocol

  • 16 May 2025

    香港特別行政區 訴 李育菁

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 3760
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA57/2024

    The sentencing judge was aware of and considered the appellant's mental health material but correctly found the evidence insufficient to establish significant contemporaneous impairment; the offences were deliberate and premeditated, caused significant waste of emergency resources and risked public safety, and immediate short custodial sentences were necessary and not manifestly excessive; the appeal is therefore dismissed.

    • False fire alarm
    • Wasting police resources
    • Mitigation for mental disorder
    • Immediate custody vs community orders
    • Admission of fresh evidence on appeal

  • 14 Apr 2025

    LI DIANXIAO v. CAPITAL CENTURY TEXTILE COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 1508
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA751/2022

    The Court refused leave to adduce the proposed new evidence because the Ladd v Marshall conditions were not met and there was inexcusable delay and procedural unfairness; on the merits the 2001 Agreement involved unauthorised dealing with PRC national assets and, given expert uncontradicted evidence about severe PRC consequences and the public policy/comity considerations, enforcement of that agreement must be denied in Hong Kong (Type 4 foreign illegality), therefore the Amended Statement of Claim against the 1st and 5th defendants is struck out; the Master did not err in exercising discreti…

    • Striking out
    • Admission of fresh evidence on appeal
    • Foreign illegality
    • Security for costs
    • Costs
    • Resulting constructive trust