Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Fresh evidence admissibility (ladd v marshall)
  • 16 Jul 2018

    RE SOHAIL MUHAMMAD ANJUM

    Citation
    [2018] HKCA 385
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV57/2018

    The Court held that the judge correctly refused leave because the applicant presented no reasonably arguable legal ground: there was no evidence linking the interpreter to LT or explaining refusal to speak; the medical evidence did not demonstrate incapacity to participate and the later private doctor’s note could not be admitted on appeal under Ladd v Marshall; no error of law or procedural unfairness nor Wednesbury unreasonableness was shown by the Board’s decision; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was rightly refused and the appeal dismissed.

    • Judicial review leave
    • Procedural fairness
    • Interpreter bias
    • Adjournment for medical reasons
    • Fresh evidence admissibility (ladd v marshall)
    • Wednesbury unreasonableness
  • 28 Oct 2011

    CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v.CHAN CHUN CHUEN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v.CHAN CHUN CHUEN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMV20/2011

    Leave to appeal was refused: the appeal did not qualify as of right because the order sought validating the 2006 will would not have an immediate, quantifiable proprietary effect (Issue 9 on construction/codicil would require remittal and quantification); discretionary leave was refused because concurrent factual findings by the trial judge and Court of Appeal were properly made and the proposed fresh police statements did not create a reasonable prospect of demonstrating miscarriage of justice sufficient to overturn those findings.

    • Leave to appeal as of right under s22(1)(a)
    • Discretionary leave under s22(1)(b)
    • Concurrent findings of fact
    • Fresh evidence admissibility (ladd v marshall)
    • Immediacy requirement for proprietary claims