Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Affidavit admissibility

Legal area

Court

11 May 2022

ANTONIA LOUISE ZOYA ANTON v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 424
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC724/2020

Because the affidavit filed by Mr Yeung was unsworn it was invalid and was expunged; the court held that Mr Kwong, as senior in‑house counsel responsible for managing the proceedings, is an appropriate deponent and granted retrospective leave to file his sworn affidavit of 24 November 2021; the replacement did not unfairly prejudice the applicant and procedural directions were given to progress the Discovery Summons.
9 Mar 2017

RE CHEN CHERYL DEANNA

Citation

RE CHEN CHERYL DEANNA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB3082/2016

The court preferred the process server's credible evidence and found that the statutory demand was personally served on 18 March 2016; the petition (for HK$60,873.39) would have succeeded but for subsequent repayments which reduced the debt below the statutory threshold; accordingly petitioner entitled to costs up to and including 23 August 2016 (to be taxed if not agreed), no order as to costs for 24 August–26 September 2016, and an order nisi for costs after 26 September 2016 excluding costs relating to specified affidavits; certain affidavits were expunged and late evidence refused.
19 Dec 2006

ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG v. ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG v. ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA571/2003

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds or merit for an appeal, offered an inadequate explanation for the delay, and were not prejudiced by the earlier decision to allow use of the affidavit (the factual issue of any settlement can be determined by the Master on taxation).
18 Jul 2002

Re Jinro (HK) International Ltd.

Citation

Re Jinro (HK) International Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1352/2001

Pre-statute-demand discussions were not protected by without prejudice privilege because no dispute over petitioners' rights existed and communications were requests for accommodation; the post-demand without prejudice letter did not contain an unambiguous admission or impropriety sufficient to pierce privilege and therefore its relevant references are inadmissible; the contested factual descriptions of the Euroclear system were admissible as factual evidence based on the deponent's experience and, in any event, admissible as opinion under s58(2) or O.38 r.36; only the last sentence of paragr…

Hong Kong Case Law

ANTONIA LOUISE ZOYA ANTON v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

RE CHEN CHERYL DEANNA

ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG v. ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG AND OTHERS

Re Jinro (HK) International Ltd.