Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal

  • 28 Mar 2018

    SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MO SHAU WAH AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2018] HKCA 191
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV207/2017

    The Court of Appeal granted CPSL leave to adduce the seven documents because they were material to the issues already considered by the deputy judge (and some had been before him), the additional documents updated and directly related to CPSL's asserted claim by subrogation and proprietary/damages exposure, and the 1st defendant's opposition was unjustified; consequently the appeal should proceed with those materials before the court and costs were ordered against the 1st defendant for the hearing.

    • Misappropriation of client assets
    • Subrogation
    • Mareva injunction
    • Proprietary versus non‑proprietary claims
    • Leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal
    • Restoration and damages under sfo

  • 4 Aug 2016

    ARCH CAPITAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. NEO TELEMEDIA LTD

    Citation
    ARCH CAPITAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. NEO TELEMEDIA LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1281/2015

    Leave to adduce further evidence on appeal was refused because the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the hearing below; stay of execution was refused because the defendant failed to show strong grounds and gave unsupported assertions about plaintiffs' assets; indemnity costs were awarded because the summonses were wholly unmeritorious and ignored clearly relevant material (the defendant's Announcement).

    • Tomlin order
    • Leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal
    • Stay of execution pending appeal
    • Costs on indemnity basis
    • Subscription agreement

  • 11 Oct 2013

    GANNON VIETNAM COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER v. ROBERT PAUL GREENE

    Citation
    GANNON VIETNAM COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER v. ROBERT PAUL GREENE
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA584/2012

    Leave refused. Franke's 2nd Affidavit refused because Master had already exercised discretion and refused its admission and plaintiffs pursued wrong procedure instead of appealing that refusal; Expert Opinion refused because plaintiffs failed to show it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence (first Ladd v Marshall condition) and admitting it would undermine the purpose of O58 r1(5).

    • Leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal
    • Service out of jurisdiction
    • Setting aside writ
    • Ladd v marshall test
    • Forum non conveniens
    • Costs

  • 9 Apr 2002

    RICHMAN RESOURCES LTD. AND ANOTHER v. ZHANG SABINE SOI FAN AND OTHERS

    Citation
    RICHMAN RESOURCES LTD. AND ANOTHER v. ZHANG SABINE SOI FAN AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV2268/2001

    The Court granted leave to adduce additional evidence under the Po Kwong test because the evidence arose after the Deputy Judge's judgment; on that evidence the 2nd defendant was not a substantial Hong Kong business and, coupled with other unsatisfied judgments and the 1st defendant's conduct, there was a grave risk of asset dissipation; accordingly a fresh Mareva injunction should be granted and the plaintiffs' protection extended from the date of judgment until satisfaction of judgment, with costs and the form of the order to be determined later.

    • Mareva injunction
    • Non-disclosure
    • Leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal
    • Asset preservation
    • Default judgment