Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to adduce further evidence

Legal area

Court

6 Nov 2024

PMCL also known as LMC also known as KLMC v. AKK also known as KAK AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKFC 205
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11521/2015

The Summons was dismissed because there was no evidence the requested SCB statements were within P’s possession custody or power, R1 failed to show exceptional circumstances or produce draft evidence to justify adduction of further evidence shortly before trial, and there was no basis to order distribution of matrimonial funds prior to the ancillary relief trial; the application was abusive and frivolous, warranting dismissal and costs against R1.
12 Aug 2022

GRADE ONE LTD AND OTHERS v. CHOW CHIN YUI, ANGELA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2328
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA494/2021

The court found plaintiffs' misrepresentation defences (non-enforcement promises, Fund Performance, US$10M/Fund IV commitments) not credible or insufficiently particularised and dismissed the application to admit further evidence; summary judgment was entered for CMS on its counterclaim under the Supplemental Deed and for CAM on the Facility Agreement to the extent relating to the Henter Loan. However, because an arguable triable issue existed as to whether the Cachet Loan under the Share Pledge involved unlicensed moneylending and could taint the Facility Agreement, plaintiffs were granted u…
10 Dec 2020

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SHATIN NEW TOWN AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG KWOK KEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKDC 1182
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2684/2019

Grant only limited leave: permit P1 and P2 to adduce paragraphs 32-35 and 38-42 of P2's 3rd affirmation and two uncontroversial supplemental affirmations filed 27 November 2020; redact and expunge all other paragraphs of P2's 3rd affirmation; allow D2 and D4 to file limited consequential affirmations in reply confined to the allowed paragraphs by specified deadlines; limit further affidavits or submissions without leave; adjourn the injunction hearing; order costs to the 2nd Defendant with certificate for counsel.
7 May 2020

U STORAGE GROUP LTD v. DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 711
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL490/2019

The court granted leave in part: it held that paragraphs of Wong 3rd and Hoi 2nd which respond to amendments in the Amended Form 86 fell within the consent order and required no further leave, and that the Putative Respondent could adduce specific Further Evidence (Wong 3rd 13–14 and Hoi 2nd 22–25, 28–30) because those paragraphs were factual, responsive to new factual matters first raised in the Applicant's reply, relevant to the justificatory and proportionality issues under Ground 5A, and their admission would not cause unfair prejudice given the Order 53 regime
8 Apr 2020

PACIFIC TELECOM & NAVIGATION LTD v. YE LEI

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 586
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1018/2019

On the material before the court (Declaration of Trust, Written Resolution and defendant's admissions), plaintiff has shown a serious question to be tried that the Subject Shares are held on trust for plaintiff; defendant failed to plead or adduce Mainland law to displace presumption of Hong Kong law and failed to justify late additional evidence; accordingly proprietary injunction and ancillary voting and interference restraints are justified pending trial and costs are awarded to plaintiff on an indemnity basis.
24 Jun 2019

RE BEST YEAR ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1636
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW65/2019

The petition to wind up the company was not to be adjourned because the company had not paid the full judgment debt into court, had obtained summary judgment against it with no stay pending appeal, and its allegations of fraud were unparticularized and had been insufficient to secure leave to adduce further evidence; accordingly the court made the usual winding up order.
20 Jun 2019

POWER SECURITIES CO LTD (formerly known as JUN YANG SECURITIES CO LTD) v. BEST YEAR ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1591
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2851/2017

The application for leave was dismissed because the Defendant failed the first Ladd v Marshall condition by not showing the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence, and also failed to show the evidence would probably have had an important influence or raised a triable issue to resist summary judgment; accordingly leave is refused and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
7 Nov 2018

SHIH HUA INVESTMENT CO., LTD v. ZHANG AIDONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCA 805
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP76/2017

The application to adduce further evidence was dismissed because the first Ladd v Marshall condition was not met: the alleged forum-shopping allegations were clearly raised in earlier pleadings (Zhang's December 2016 affirmation and the defendants' July 2017 skeleton argument) and SH could with reasonable diligence have adduced the proposed evidence before Harris J; consequently the further evidence was not admitted and the summons dismissed.
6 Feb 2018

MEI SHENG TEXTILES VIETNAM CO LTD v. CHINA GRACE GARMENT LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 244
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2311/2013

Leave to adduce the late affirmation and voluminous exhibits was refused because the documents were business records in the defendant's possession, the defendant failed to show exceptional circumstances or reasonable diligence justifying late production, the consent order barred further affidavits without leave, and the late application prejudiced the plaintiff and disrupted the allocated hearing time.
10 Jan 2018

AMUSE PEACE LTD v. CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION (INTERNATIONAL) CO., LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 146
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2913/2016

The court exercised its discretion to admit late evidence because the judgment in related proceedings (HCA 2814) constituted an important development directly relevant to issues of consistency between pleadings and witness evidence on identical facts; the plaintiff was therefore granted leave to file its solicitor's affirmation and the defendant was granted leave to file further affirmations so the defendant could respond. The court rejected characterising the defendant's applications as a back-door appeal and required full context by admitting material placed before B Chu J.