Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to adduce evidence

Legal area

Court

30 Jul 2025

RE EVER HARMONY ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3351
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW172/2025

The Company failed to file opposing evidence within the time fixed by rule 32 and has not shown good reason to allow late evidence without the usual condition of paying the petitioning debt into court; the proposed affidavit was inadmissible and the Company cannot demonstrate a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds to rebut the prima facie indebtedness established by the unpaid Final Judgment and statutory demand; accordingly a winding up order was justified and the Company’s summons for leave to file the affidavit was dismissed.
23 Jun 2025

KINGSTON FINANCE LTD v. GAINCOURT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2345
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP369/2024

On the evidence before the court the Intervener has raised triable issues of fact on both non est factum and undue influence such that her defences cannot be struck out at this interlocutory stage; the plaintiff was on inquiry concerning undue influence and failed to take reasonable steps to allay that risk; the Intervener was properly permitted to file supplemental affirmations and P's summons to exclude those affirmations fails; the Intervener is to be joined as the 4th Defendant and existing stay continued pending determination of the appeal and related proceedings, with costs reserved (or…
21 Aug 2024

YANG YU v. HK HUANHAI TRADE CO. LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1495
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP216/2023

Applicant failed to discharge the burden to show he acted in good faith and for a proper purpose; there was no reasonable evidential basis to suspect false accounting or misappropriation and the scope of documents sought was excessive and amounted to a fishing expedition, therefore the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the Amended Originating Summons.
1 Mar 2024

LUCKY GAIN INDUSTRIAL LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PRISTINE VILLA

Citation

[2024] HKDC 277
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3549/2022

Plaintiff obtained the 2016 report only after pursuing the discovery summons and after Mr Wong's affidavit demonstrated existence; defendant's continued refusal to permit disclosure after that affidavit was unreasonable to a high degree and justified indemnity costs from the point of the affidavit; defendant's New Affirmations were unnecessary and unhelpful and dismissed with indemnity costs; minor corrective affirmations allowed without costs.
24 Aug 2023

NS v. NK

Citation

[2023] HKFC 171
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8255/2022

The court refused the Husband's unprocedural late evidence except for a limited update on employment, found on the evidence that the Husband has an earning capacity of not less than HK$50,000 per month, calculated the children's reasonable monthly needs and ordered equal sharing of those needs resulting in maintenance of HK$5,500 per child (HK$27,500 total), and ordered costs against the Husband.
30 Nov 2022

XIE LI XIN v. LAW KA YAN, THOMPSON AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1476/2017

The plaintiff is entitled to indemnity costs against the 1st defendant because the HC and DC Applications were part of the 1st defendant's fraudulent or unattractive conduct designed to defeat enforcement and render him judgment-proof; the plaintiff succeeded in defeating those applications by deploying the D1 Affirmations under the Order; costs follow the event and indemnity costs are appropriate given the 1st defendant's conduct; the appropriate summary assessment of the claimed portion is HK$110,000.
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.
2 Sept 2021

CTRISKS RATING LIMITED v. DELHAISE PHILIPPE FREDERIC AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2619
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3108/2016

Leave granted to permit two identified witnesses to give evidence at trial from Singapore by VCF, on conditions including use of a neutral venue and independent observer, because travel restrictions caused by COVID-19 made attendance impracticable and refusal would likely cause an undesirable adjournment; costs of the application and taking evidence to be borne by the Plaintiff and indemnity costs refused.
4 Mar 2021

WONG KWEI PIU v. CHOW CHI CHEUNG t/a SUN LEE CO.

Citation

[2021] HKDC 281
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2318/2017

The court found exceptional circumstances existed to allow the plaintiff to file the supplemental affirmation because the supplemental psychiatric report was new, credible and could materially affect the Expert Directions Summons under the Ladd v Marshall criteria; the court also exercised its case management discretion under the CJR to grant leave to each party to adduce psychiatric expert evidence because the relevance and necessity of psychiatric evidence could not be dismissed on the materials before the court and the prejudice to the plaintiff of refusal outweighed any prejudice or delay…
20 Dec 2019

HO YAT WAH v. CHUNG HANG HIM (the sole executrix named in the will of Madam CHAN YUK MUI, deceased)

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3041
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA731/2014

Leave was granted because the authenticity of the signature is central, there are non‑fanciful reasons to doubt the single joint expert's attribution of differences to forgery (health could explain differences), the additional reports would not cause significant delay, and costs would not be disproportionate given the high value at stake; a Joint Report would assist and could save trial time.