Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Overriding objective

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2025

POOSAALA RAM PRASAD v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 934
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP103/2025

The Court refused admission of the medical records because they would not affect the leave/extension determination or the merits of the intended interlocutory appeal; the Court refused leave to appeal and to extend time because the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; the Defendant complied with the sealed unless order (filing within the 7‑day period as interpreted) and the allowance of the amendment was a proper exercise of discretion in furtherance of the overriding objective, with any prejudice compensable by costs.
6 Jan 2023

FUNG SHING CHUNG v. CHOI KING HUNG

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 100
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2860/2018

The appeal is dismissed because Poon's witness statement was neither relevant to the core issues nor of probative value, its provenance and reliability were doubtful and unexplained, the Defendant failed to justify the long delay in producing the witness, and the application constituted a dilatory tactic contrary to case management objectives; admission would prejudice the efficient conduct of the case.
7 Oct 2020

THE YIN NIN SAVINGS MORTGAGE LOAN & LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. OCCUPIER(S) OF PREMISES (save and except the 2nd Defendant to the 9th Defendant) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2594
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1739/2003

The appeal is allowed: the Amendment Order of 27 May 2019, which purported to amend the Consent Order to grant express leave for separate representation, was wrongly made and is set aside. Separate representation for co-plaintiffs is disfavoured and requires exceptional justification and full inter partes consideration; the Master erred by treating the matter as already decided ex parte and not re-hearing the issue when objections were raised. The question of the 2nd Plaintiff's locus and any exceptional justification must be reconsidered by a master after further submissions and evidence.
15 Nov 2019

MG CHARTER LTD v. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2800
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1635/2012

Where witnesses have accumulated specialised expertise, statements containing opinion derived from that expertise are not necessarily inadmissible; such material should generally be left for assessment of weight and credibility by the trial judge rather than struck out pre-trial absent clear necessity to require expert evidence under the rules.

Hong Kong Case Law

POOSAALA RAM PRASAD v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

FUNG SHING CHUNG v. CHOI KING HUNG

THE YIN NIN SAVINGS MORTGAGE LOAN & LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. OCCUPIER(S) OF PREMISES (save and except the 2nd Defendant to the 9th Defendant) AND OTHERS

MG CHARTER LTD v. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO LTD