Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cross-examination of affidavits

Legal area

Court

27 Aug 2018

LEUNG YUET MING, Executrix of the Estate of LEUNG WING CHUEN (Deceased) v. LEUNG YEUK HUNG

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1911
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1880/2017

There were substantial and genuine factual disputes about ownership, financial contribution and intent which could not be resolved on affidavit evidence; accordingly, under Order 28 r8(1) the proceedings should continue as if commenced by writ, with specified pleading, discovery and evidence timetables, and costs awarded to the defendant for specified summonses.
17 Jan 2017

CHOW CHAK KIU v. CHOW MAN CHIT AND OTHERS

Citation

CHOW CHAK KIU v. CHOW MAN CHIT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP797/2016

Madam Chow and Madam Chau were removed as administratrices because the court was satisfied that removal was necessary for the due and proper administration of the estate and beneficiaries' interests: Madam Chow had misappropriated or permitted conversion of estate funds for personal use, repeatedly breached court orders and undertakings and failed to render a proper and accurate account as ordered; Madam Chau was removed for non‑participation. The court appointed Mr Ip Woon Shun as replacement administrator and refused Madam Chow's applications to adduce new evidence and to cross‑examine the…
13 Mar 2014

D v. L

Citation

D v. L
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8507/2013

The court found respondent's conduct (repeated unwelcome attempts and forced entries causing fear and police interventions) amounted to molestation and warranted a non-molestation injunction in terms of paragraph 1(a) and (b) of the Order dated 25 November 2013 with penal notice; the court refused to attach an authorization of arrest because there was no evidence of actual or a real likelihood of bodily harm; respondent's late tactical adjournment was refused and, to ensure case management fairness, respondent was allowed to rely on his affidavits as evidence despite earlier refusal to attend…
28 Feb 2006

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2203/2004

Where there are directly conflicting affidavit statements on matters central to whether service out was properly granted (material non-disclosure and legality of foreign service) and those conflicts turn on foreign law and practice, fairness requires oral testimony; accordingly the court should exercise its discretion to order cross-examination to avoid a real risk of injustice and to enable a proper decision on forum and service issues.
20 Jan 2004

RE LEUNG TZE HANG DAVID

Citation

RE LEUNG TZE HANG DAVID
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB18073/2002

The court exercised its discretion to order cross-examination because the dispute concerned whether the debt had been paid or compounded for (a condition under ss6 and 6D), the evidential burden shifted to the debtor to prove payment/compounding, and the genuineness and bona fides of the debtor's affidavit evidence could not properly be determined without cross-examination; affidavits alone were insufficient to decide the petition.
20 Feb 2002

WONG POON CHAN LAW & CO. (a firm) v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHERRY MANSION AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG POON CHAN LAW & CO. (a firm) v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHERRY MANSION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP6395/1998

On the objective assessment of contemporaneous correspondence and notes, no agreement (express or implied) existed for the 2nd Defendant to waive its own costs; therefore the Master was correct to strike out the action and dismiss the summons, and the application to cross-examine was properly refused as it would serve no useful purpose.
16 Feb 1995

RICKPAUL FREDE BROWN v. ELIZABETH MARY BROWN

Citation

RICKPAUL FREDE BROWN v. ELIZABETH MARY BROWN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV156/1994

The Court held that although the trial judge erred in making contested factual findings on affidavit evidence without cross-examination, the error did not render the lump sum award of $200,000 plainly wrong; the award was within the judge's discretionary ambit and is upheld. However the judge misdirected himself on the costs issue and improperly 'swept up' reserved and interlocutory costs; the costs order is set aside and replaced with an order that there be no order as to costs (each side to bear its own costs).
7 Apr 1992

CHAN SAU MUI AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

CHAN SAU MUI AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP356/1992

Where there is an arguable case that the decision-maker relied upon a non-existent material consideration (family support) such that the decision may be Wednesbury unreasonable, the court will exercise its discretion to permit cross-examination of the decision-maker's affidavit limited to that issue to resolve the factual dispute; accordingly the interlocutory application for cross-examination is allowed.