Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Video-link evidence

Legal area

Court

14 Oct 2022

JAVIER JENEVIEVE ASUNCION for herself and on behalf of the members of the family of LORAIN ESCORIAL ASUNCION (the Deceased) v. GU HUAI YU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1162
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1745/2019

Leave granted because the applicant established that the three witnesses were essential, their sworn financial and personal circumstances made attendance impracticable and would effectively stifle the claim, the court can and should manage risks to fairness by imposing safeguards, and the balance of justice favoured video-link with directions to minimize prejudice.
28 Jan 2021

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. CHIHO ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 249
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3040/2015

The court allowed the application: SVO's evidence was necessary for the purposes of justice and, on the evidence, SVO could not reasonably be expected to attend trial in Hong Kong (including by video‑link); the letter of request, properly framed, can permit appropriate cross‑examination in the Netherlands and the potential prejudice and delay are manageable (costs can compensate most prejudice and timetable will be kept under review).
28 Jan 2021

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. CHIHO ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 249
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2939/2016

The court exercised its discretion to grant the letters of request because (1) SVO's evidence was necessary for the purposes of justice and central to contested issues; (2) on the evidence SVO could not reasonably be expected to attend Hong Kong or be induced to do so and was unwilling to give evidence by video-link; and (3) a proper and effective cross-examination could, subject to specific procedural requests, be conducted in the Netherlands under the Hague Convention, with most prejudice being compensable by costs.
10 May 2016

VELATEL GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS INC AND ANOTHER v. CHINACOMM LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

VELATEL GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS INC AND ANOTHER v. CHINACOMM LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1978/2011

The court exercised its discretion to grant a conditional adjournment to 23 June 2016 to permit defendants further opportunity to secure D6's evidence, but only on terms: defendants must pay plaintiffs' costs summarily assessed and provide firm evidence about the Mainland trial, letter of request and video‑link options; the application to adduce Li Hong Ji’s witness statement was dismissed as late, duplicative and effectively untestable; costs of $269,599 were ordered on an indemnity basis payable within 14 days.
16 Oct 2013

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (In Compulsory Liquidation) v. JAMES HENRY TING

Citation

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (In Compulsory Liquidation) v. JAMES HENRY TING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL42/2005

The application for the defendant to give evidence by video-link was refused because the defendant's credibility was central to the case, the documentary and interpreter demands would be significantly worsened by remote evidence, the psychiatric reports did not establish an absolute inability to travel, and the risk of re-arrest was found to be negligible; therefore the proper exercise of the court's discretion required in-person testimony.
12 Jul 2013

CIVIC LTD v. 余綺妙 AND OTHERS

Citation

CIVIC LTD v. 余綺妙 AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA225/2011

The court exercised a balancing exercise: although the passports and photos were disclosed late and the explanation was unsatisfactory, their prima facie relevance justified granting retrospective leave to file the 3rd List and leave to serve the supplemental witness statement subject to stringent conditions to protect defendants from prejudice — inspection of originals, provision of a schedule and legible copies, reserved admissibility of the passports pending possible objection and inspection, tight timetables for objections and any reply evidence, prohibition on witnesses amplifying the la…
16 Oct 2012

CWG v. MH AND OTHERS

Citation

CWG v. MH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP643/2012

Given R2's central and contested role, the late and extensive nature of her affirmations, the insufficiency of medical evidence to justify inability to give evidence by video-link, and the prejudice to the Wife, the court dismissed R2’s application and excluded all her affirmations and witness statement unless R2 attends for cross-examination via video-link; exclusion was not prejudicial to the interests of justice.
25 Oct 2004

HONG KONG KAM LAN KOON LTD v. REALRAY INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

HONG KONG KAM LAN KOON LTD v. REALRAY INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15824/1999

The court held that the interlocutory order for examination did not automatically satisfy the requirements of Order 38 Rule 9 at trial; the deposition was admissible under Order 38 Rule 9 against the original Plaintiff because the witness was shown to be unfit to attend trial, but the 2nd Defendant by counterclaim was not bound by the earlier order (not a party to it) so the transcript could not be admitted as deposition against him though it could be admitted as hearsay; limited cross-examination by video-link was permitted for fairness and proportionality.
25 Jul 2003

HONG LOK SCHOOL LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHOW SAI YIU AND ANOTHER

Citation

HONG LOK SCHOOL LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHOW SAI YIU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA17139/1999

The judge refused to make any interlocutory ruling on the medical evidence and treated the medical evidence as trial evidence to be assessed at final judgment; he held that costs for the Plaintiffs' applications to admit new evidence (30 June and 2 July), the Plaintiffs' application on 8 July and the adjournment of 7 July should be paid by Kwan Ko Siu Wah and Kwan Kay Cheong to Chow Sai Yiu and Chan Cheung Po, payable in any event, but not ordered to be paid forthwith or on an indemnity basis; other cost issues were reserved and a global costs order nisi was made that the applications for cos…
5 May 2003

HIGH FASHION GARMENTS CO LTD v. NG SIU TONG AND OTHERS

Citation

HIGH FASHION GARMENTS CO LTD v. NG SIU TONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12093/1999

Section 47 does not entitle a litigant to ignore or avoid court directions under Order 38 Rule 2 requiring attendance for cross-examination; the court will permit the affirmation to be read only on condition that the Plaintiff procures the deponent to attend at a designated venue in Singapore for cross-examination by video-link, exercising its discretion under Order 38 and Rule 21(2).