Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subpoena

Legal area

Court

2 Mar 2026

CHOW LILY v. CHOW WAI WAI VIOLET AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1148
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP22/2019

The appeal was allowed because Professor Lo’s evidence is potentially highly relevant to the newly pleaded undue influence claim, the defendants made a timely and adequately explained application (8 months before trial) after attempts to obtain a statement, the estimated disruption is minimal, the plaintiff identified no real prejudice, the application was not an abuse of process given the Amendment Order, and overall justice under Order 1A r 2(2) required granting leave to issue the subpoena.
12 Feb 2026

WU JUN v. CAPTAIN HOLDINGS LTD (In Compulsory Liquidation) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1063
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA106/2022

The court dismissed the interlocutory application as premature: the admissibility of Hu's witness statement cannot be finally determined before trial because Hu's attendance was uncertain but possible; Chan's statement should not be struck out because he may give admissible evidence based on documents and company records and the court should not engage in exhaustive line‑by‑line deletion pre-trial; costs follow the event.
11 Sept 2025

田勤先 as executor of the estate of 田家庚, deceased 對田珍妮

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4577
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP6/2022

The court refused to compel a will witness to deliver a pre-trial affidavit; existing procedure permitting viva voce examination of attesting witnesses at trial is adequate, and even if the court possessed a power to require pre-trial affidavits the court would not exercise it in this case.
8 Aug 2023

LEE CHICK CHOI v. THE HONG KONG GOLF CLUB

Citation

[2023] HKCA 938
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP313/2022

Summons dismissed and costs ordered to follow the event; although the intended appeal lacked merit, the claimant promptly abandoned the summons after trial commenced so indemnity costs were not warranted; respondent's costs were summarily assessed on a party-to-party basis at HK$80,000.
9 Jun 2023

曲秀紅對何佩佩及另一人

Citation

[2023] HKDC 921
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI564/2021

Extension of time was refused because the oral orders took immediate effect on 26 October 2022, the applicant's delay of about three months lacked an acceptable explanation (mere misunderstanding of procedure), and the proposed appeal had no realistic prospects since the registrar's decisions to exclude improperly filed materials, to strike out a non-compliant subpoena application, and to limit expert evidence were correct and justified; accordingly the application for late permission to appeal was denied and the appeal dismissed.
13 May 2022

CHARM MASTER INTERPRISES LTD v. GRAND T G GOLD HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1408
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA397/2011

The Court held that the 2019 statutory declaration must be excluded unless its maker, Robin Lee, attends for cross-examination because statutory declarations made to support litigation are treated like affirmations and subject to Order 38; the 2 May 2008 letter is a historical document whose admissibility is not dependent on Robin Lee's attendance; leave to amend the defence and counterclaim and to file the 2nd supplemental witness statement was granted because the proposed Separate Agreement amendments were not bound to fail and were relevant to determining entitlement to the sums paid into…
21 Oct 2020

游鳳珠對盧偉旗牧師及另一人

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2554
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA925/2018

The summons was set aside because the plaintiff had no proper basis: the proposed third defendant had not been validly joined without the court's leave; the allegations against that person lacked particulars and a disclosed cause of action; the extraordinary remedies sought (apology, compensation, seizure/closure of property) were not shown to be within the court's power on the material before the court; contested factual issues must be resolved at trial with evidence rather than by the court on the summons.
6 Nov 2019

LEELAN RUKESH MARASINGHE v. DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2760
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1457/2018

The Split Hearing Application was allowed because the issuance and pendency of the Discovery Summonses and subpoena were unforeseen and destroyed the basis for the earlier rolled‑up hearing direction; the court must not ignore extant discovery applications necessary for a fair determination of an arguable Actual Bias ground and may therefore vary prior directions under Order 25 rule 1B(1) on that ground.
3 Jul 2017

EALTHY CATERING HOLDINGS LTD v. SUPERIOR LUCK LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

EALTHY CATERING HOLDINGS LTD v. SUPERIOR LUCK LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5075/2015

The 2nd supplemental discovery was materially late because it was made after all evidence had been filed; the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory affidavit explanation for the delay and the statement makers will not attend to be sworn and cross-examined. As a result the plaintiff is not permitted to rely on those late undisclosed statements at trial; the plaintiff may however rely on Category A and B documents previously disclosed on 7 November 2016 and the weight of those documents will be assessed at trial.
3 Jul 2017

SOSHILA KESWANI v. MOTIRAM KESWANI

Citation

SOSHILA KESWANI v. MOTIRAM KESWANI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ579/2013

Plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs in respect of the two applications on a party-and-party basis; indemnity costs are refused because no special or unusual features justifying indemnity are present and the plaintiff's age and unrepresented status weigh against awarding indemnity costs.