Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Trial directions

Legal area

Court

7 Apr 2025

POLO COURT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TENY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 629
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2134/2020

The Court refused to determine the defendant's application in the absence of a draft supplemental witness statement and made an unless order: defendant must issue an inter partes summons with a draft supplemental witness statement and an affirmation by 4 pm on 15 April 2025 or be debarred from applying to file or serve supplemental witness statements before trial; the Court accepted the adoption of Norman Chang's witness statement as evidence-in-chief following plaintiff's withdrawal of its objection.
13 Dec 2024

HKSAR v. LAI WAI CHUN

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1139
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC241/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court concluded there were no arguable grounds: the evidence (immigration timing, PW1's observation and overheard words, telephone records linking the phones, physical items recovered and the getaway vehicle) provided cogent support for the jury's verdict and the sentencing judge properly applied sentencing principles and enhanced the starting point for clear aggravating factors.
15 Dec 2022

WONG LUEN HANG AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUK LUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3763
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1265/2015

The court accepted the defendants' evidence (corroborated by others and documentary records) that they were misled by their former legal executive and that subsequent delay was not culpable given change of solicitors and pandemic disruptions; on balance the interests of justice required granting relief from the unless order to permit a compliant valuation expert report to be adduced for the defence, subject to costs and directions to minimise prejudice to the plaintiffs.
25 May 2020

TAISHIN INTERNATIONAL BANK CO., LTD v. QFI LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 938
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA194/2016

Despite the defendant’s delay and the court’s finding that mere inconvenience of quarantine is not alone decisive, the unforeseeable COVID-19 pandemic and legitimate health and travel concerns justified permitting the witness to give evidence by videoconference with appropriate safeguards; reciprocity was required so the plaintiff’s witness was afforded the same option; measures (neutral location, local observer, transcription) mitigate prejudice and the court’s case management powers support the order.
11 Sept 2019

FUNG YAU LIN AND OTHERS v. LAM SHUET YING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1228
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1005/2017

Despite the lateness and inadequate supporting material, substitution of the plaintiffs' expert was permitted because there was no evidence of shopping for opinion, the plaintiffs bore no culpable fault for the expert's unavailability, and the proposed timetable would not cause significant disruption; permission was conditional on a strict filing deadline for the expert report, attendance of experts at trial and costs consequences to protect defendants from prejudice.
6 Nov 2017

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. EASE KEEN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. EASE KEEN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2688/2016

The court held that the mortgage originating summonses should be converted into writ actions and tried together with the writ action because the FX derivative disputes were sufficiently linked to SCBHK's banking facilities and their resolution was necessary before the extent of indebtedness under the mortgages could be crystallised; borrowers are not precluded from raising equitable set-off or cross-claims and proceeding with the mortgage actions before resolving the writ action would risk prejudging core issues.
9 Feb 2017

FULL PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SHEA YING FAI t/a DAMIEN SHEA & CO, SOLICITORS

Citation

FULL PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SHEA YING FAI t/a DAMIEN SHEA & CO, SOLICITORS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA377/2013

The stay was dismissed because there was no significant change of circumstances since the trial directions of 1 September 2016 and because a stay would create a real risk of duplicated examination of common witnesses, inconsistent factual findings, and unnecessary duplication of costs and judicial time.
29 Dec 2014

TO PUI KUI AND OTHERS v. HULTUCKTONG COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TO PUI KUI AND OTHERS v. HULTUCKTONG COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1041/2009

Leave to amend was granted despite inordinate delay because prior evidence at an earlier trial and supplemental statements had already deployed the 'paper meeting' case, so opponents could not be unfairly surprised; the interests of justice required the amendments subject to strict timetabled conditions and costs on an indemnity basis payable by the applicants.
11 Jul 2013

HKSAR v. WANG WEILIE

Citation

HKSAR v. WANG WEILIE <br>
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC478/2011

Locality of the act causing death is a jurisdictional matter, not an essential element of murder; where counsel expressly concedes jurisdiction and the evidence and plea support that the fatal act occurred within Hong Kong, the judge is not required to leave jurisdiction as a live issue to the jury, and no miscarriage of justice arose from declining to do so; application to appeal was dismissed.
23 Sept 2011

TAN KAH ENG v. THE EXECUTORS OR INTENDED EXCUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF TAN ENG KHIAM, DECEASED

Citation

TAN KAH ENG v. THE EXECUTORS OR INTENDED EXCUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF TAN ENG KHIAM, DECEASED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9640/1999

Having regard to the existing unappealed security order by Deputy Judge Carlson, the defendant's skeleton cost bill for interlocutory orders, allowance for reductions (shorter trial, enforcement ease) and absence of convincing evidence that additional security would stifle the plaintiff's case, the court ordered additional security for costs in the sum of $300,000 to be paid into court by the specified deadline and ordered that the costs of the application be the defendant's costs in the cause.