Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cross-examination of deponents

Legal area

Court

12 Mar 2024

RE PRIMLAKS (H.K.) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 752
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW258/2018

The court confirmed the liquidators' adjudication because the Petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving the alleged loans and interest by credible contemporaneous evidence; accounting records and contemporaneous documents were inconsistent with loans owed by the Company and showed sums booked to other group companies, and there was no evidential basis for the claimed interest, so the proofs beyond the admitted principal were rightly rejected.
20 Aug 2015

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. LI PANG KAY AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. LI PANG KAY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1851/2013

The court refused leave to cross-examine because, in the factual context, the proposed lines of questioning were not sufficiently relevant to the only live issue (sentence). Specifically, the reliability of the WhatsApp source was immaterial where no falsehood or additional offending conduct was alleged; and forcing editors to give further positive evidence that would create aggravating facts was inappropriate where defendants' mitigation did not depend on those matters. The exercise of discretion favoured refusal given the facts, though the court left open revisiting the issue if defendants…
5 May 2015

DEMBELE, SALIFOU AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

DEMBELE, SALIFOU AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL44/2014

The court refused the discovery and cross-examination applications because the material sought was not necessary for resolution of the critical issues pleaded in the Amended Form 86, the application was overly broad and speculative, and it was unreasonably delayed; consequently leave to cross-examine was also refused.
22 Jan 2014

WONG TAK MAN, STEPHEN AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG SIU FAI also known as DICKSON CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG TAK MAN, STEPHEN AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG SIU FAI also known as DICKSON CHEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1431/2012

Because the 2nd respondent advanced a positive account central to the trustees' claims and there are possible discrepancies between her affirmation and the interview note not conclusively resolved by documentary evidence, the court ordered that the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent, the bankrupt and Mr Cheung Hung be tendered for cross-examination and that, subject to the trial judge's direction, their affirmations dated 10 July 2013 may not be relied upon unless they are so tendered.
19 Dec 2013

RE MOULIN GLOBAL EYECARE HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

RE MOULIN GLOBAL EYECARE HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW470/2005

The court found some paragraphs of Xie‑2nd contained argumentative or non‑factual material contrary to Order 41 rules but declined to strike them out because offending material was identifiable, the affidavit record was closed, and the appeal is a de novo hearing where the judge can exclude irrelevant material from his mind; separately, in the interests of justice and because the liquidators challenged credibility and sought to go behind Mainland judgments given new evidence of fraud, leave to cross‑examine Mr Xie was granted with time limited to three hours and timetable adjustments ordered.
27 Jul 2012

WU YANG v. DAYUAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WU YANG v. DAYUAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2143/2011

Leave to cross-examine was refused because the respondents had no direct evidence that the applicant leaked to Caixin and the applicant denied the allegation on oath; the dispute over beneficial ownership was not materially probative of bona fides given the applicant was the registered 30% owner and the apparent support of the beneficial owner; allowing cross-examination would not serve any useful purpose and would undermine the expeditious statutory procedure under s152FA.
16 May 2001

KWOK YING LUNG v. KO CHI HUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

KWOK YING LUNG v. KO CHI HUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP209/1999

The judge inferred that the direction for hearing before the Master was made by the consent of the parties based on prior attendance before the Master, the judge's oral directions referring to adjournment to the Master, and the clerk's endorsement; accordingly the order was amended to insert the words 'by consent' in paragraph 2.
23 Mar 1999

EMPIRE TREND ENTERPRISES LTD. v. DOUBLE MIND CO. LTD.

Citation

EMPIRE TREND ENTERPRISES LTD. v. DOUBLE MIND CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2425/1998

The court refused the defendant's application to continue the proceedings as if begun by Writ because the additional delay and cost would be prejudicial and everything necessary can be achieved under the Originating Summons procedure; the court gave detailed directions (affidavits to stand as evidence, cross-examination of named deponents at hearing, expert disclosure within 42 days and limits on number of experts) and ordered security for costs of HKD 2.2 million with a staged payment schedule and allocated costs of the interlocutory hearings.
1 Jun 1992

JOHN BAPTIST WU v. TSOI KAY AND ANOTHER

Citation

JOHN BAPTIST WU v. TSOI KAY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4983/1987

The appeal is allowed and the Master's order permitting cross-examination and the subpoena is set aside because the plaintiff lacked sufficient evidence to justify a trial-within-a-trial; affidavits of documents are normally accepted at face value and cross-examination of deponents is a rare, exceptional remedy not warranted by mere suspicion; Order 24 remedies (including committal) remain available and interlocutory diversion should be avoided.