Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Late disclosure

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2025

KISHIN SAMTANI, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF NARIAN SAMTANI, DECEASED v. CHANDERSEN TIKAMDAS SAMTANI

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4526
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA496/2011

The court refused the plaintiff's proposed variations: the plaintiff failed to show that the credit notes produced late were of the bank-issued category previously sought and the plaintiff had nonetheless pursued the misappropriation claim after the CESCO Arrangement was pleaded; there were insufficient special features to award indemnity costs; the administrator (Kishin) is prima facie personally liable and therefore the Estate of Narian Samtani and Kishin are ordered jointly and severally to pay defendant's costs on party-and-party basis with certificate for two counsel; the plaintiff's var…
26 May 2025

WONG WAI KAI v. LOH YIU KEUNG (also known as DENNIS LOH)

Citation

[2025] HKDC 853
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5175/2021

On the balance of probabilities the court found the defendant represented that Holy Legal had the invitation/admission to the Dubai World Cup, that representation was false, the plaintiff relied on it and validly rescinded the oral sale agreement; although fraud was not proved, under Misrepresentation Ordinance s3 the defendant failed to prove the representation was innocent and an adverse inference was drawn from his failure to produce contemporaneous evidence (notably from Mr Colombo); the alleged 22 January agreement and subsequent Joint Ownership Agreement were not established; accordingl…
14 May 2025

WONG MAN CHING, CHRISTINE, as executrix of the Estate of WONG TAI KIN, Deceased v. WONG YUNG MO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1936
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA305/2021

The court dismissed the defendants' applications to adduce the late witness statement of Eric Leung and the 3rd supplemental witness statement of the 1st defendant for lack of adequate explanation and because prejudice and potential disruption outweighed any marginal probative value; the court allowed only limited late disclosure (items 89–95 in the 4th Supplemental List) and ordered that the improperly filed Leung statement and the 3rd supplemental statement be expunged; defendants ordered to pay plaintiff's costs of the summons assessed at HK$63,050.
17 Dec 2024

XINHUA NEWS MEDIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. JI DAVID WEI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3687
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA391/2022

Leave to rely on Mr Tsui's proposed witness statement was refused because the application was made 17 months after the original witness's resignation with no adequate explanation for the delay or particulars of attempts to secure her attendance, the proposed statement materially expanded on the original evidence in ways central to contested issues and would unfairly prejudice defendants and upset the trial timetable; on balance the court refused the application and ordered costs against plaintiffs.
15 Nov 2024

HUNG TAT A. I. GARMENT MACHINERY COMPANY LTD v. HONG KONG MELT BLOWING PRODUCTION COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1913
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ515/2022

The plaintiff failed to justify the late application; the evidence in the proposed supplemental witness statement was either not highly probative of economic duress or could and should have been produced earlier; admitting it would cause prejudice and risk derailing the trial; accordingly leave to file and serve the supplemental list of documents and supplemental witness statement was refused, and the plaintiff was granted leave to withdraw the earlier summons with costs awarded to the defendants.
30 Oct 2023

WONG YUK LIN v. CHAN TIM YIU RAYMOND, THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATEOF CHAN KWOK CHOY (ALSO KNOWN AS CHAN KWOK CHOY SCOTT), DECEASED

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1508
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1146/2021

On the evidence the plaintiff failed to prove exclusive factual possession and requisite intention for the 12-year period. Photographic, documentary and utility-bill evidence showed minimal or no use before 2017; independent witness and agent visits (2015, 2016, 2017) and episodes of entry or obstruction (including glue in keyhole) demonstrate that exclusive possession was absent or interrupted. The defendant's actions in 2019 were lawful self-help. Therefore the adverse possession and trespass claims are dismissed.
15 Nov 2022

ECHELLES RIFFIAUD S.A. v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3486
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1841/2011

The summons was dismissed and leave to file the 3rd supplemental witness statement and 2nd supplemental list of documents refused because the applicant's delay was inordinate and inexcusable and admission would cause gross prejudice and disruption to the defendant and the trial timetable.
31 Aug 2022

ECHELLES RIFFIAUD S.A. v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2675
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1841/2011

The Disputed Parts were excluded because they contained impermissible expert opinion presented by a factual witness and the Plaintiff offered no cogent justification for the substantial delay in seeking to adduce the material shortly before trial; accordingly leave was refused and costs for the Evidence Summons were ordered against the Plaintiff.
23 Feb 2022

佰勝集團有限公司 v. 孫仲明以浩天貿易公司之名進行貿易

Citation

[2022] HKDC 202
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1140/2018

Because the proposed addition of equitable defences would introduce new lines of defence at the last minute without adequate explanation, causing real prejudice and requiring adjournment of a milestone trial, the court refused the substantive amendment; however limited amendments that corrected Annexure A and figures and deletion of a sentence in paragraph 17B were allowed by consent or without objection. The application to adduce the 2nd supplemental witness statement and further documents was dismissed for undue delay and prejudice.
15 Sept 2020

CONVERGE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. MOUNT KELLY INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2433
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT72/2018

The Defendant's application to adduce the second supplemental witness statement and supplemental list was refused because the Defendant failed to justify the delay, offered no credible explanation for late disclosure, the New Statement raised matters that should have been addressed in earlier statements or pleadings (including a new loss of revenue case), and admission would cause actual prejudice and unfairness to the Plaintiff; costs were ordered against the Defendant.