Homemain Holdings Ltd v. Li Chaobo and Another

HCA 595/2021

[2025] HKCFI 5299

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 595 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1.This is the application made by the Plaintiff, by summons issued on 16 October 2025, for leave to have its sole and key witness Mr Li Li Hong (“LH”) give evidence by video conferencing facilities in Beijing, for the trial of this action which is scheduled to commence on 1 December 2025. The application is opposed by the 2^nd Defendant.

2.In view of the limited time available between the date of the summons and the trial, the application was directed to be dealt with on paper.

3.The 2^nd Defendant opposes the application on the basis of: (1) the lateness of the application; (2) the lack of any cogent or credible evidence to support LH’s claim that his inability to physically attend the trial is due to the alleged restrictions imposed on him by the Mainland authorities; and (3) the prejudice to the 2^nd Defendant if LH should be allowed to avoid the solemnity of giving evidence in Court, and the inability to cross-examine LH effectively by video link when his credibility is in issue in the action.

4.Having considered the submissions, the pleadings and the witness statement of LH, I am prepared to grant leave to the Plaintiff as sought, for the following reasons.

5.According to LH, when he was about to travel from the Mainland to Hong Kong in May 2025, he was stopped at the Beijing airport and was informed that he had been made subject to travel restrictions and could not leave the Mainland for Hong Kong. These travel restrictions were imposed by the National Supervisory Commission (“NSC”) and since May 2025, LH had written to the NSC on 6 occasions in an attempt to have the restrictions lifted, but to no avail. The last 2 letters LH had sent were on 29 September and 13 October 2025. He has not received any reply and remains subject to the restrictions.

6.The 2^nd Defendant seeks to discredit LH’s claim, by referring to Article 7 of 監察法實施條例 (2025) of the Mainland which provides for safeguards of the personal rights, notification rights and rights of defence of a person under surveillance. It was contended that LH should have been informed and given some documents to evidence the measures imposed against him, and his failure to produce such documents casts doubts on the real reason for LH not coming to Hong Kong to give evidence.

7.As a matter of proportionality, I do not find it helpful to refer to the expert evidence which the parties have produced, on the issue of whether NSC would be required to provide documentary evidence to LH, in relation to the restrictions which had been imposed on him, and whether in practice, it was likely that LH would be given such documents.

8.On balance, I accept LH’s explanation and his evidence that he had been prevented, in May 2025, from leaving the Mainland. On his case, he had been making attempts since May 2025 to have the restrictions removed, and he had not made the application to this Court earlier because he was hopeful that the restrictions would have been removed by the time of the trial.

9.The facts of this case are therefore distinguished from those in Re Nobility School Ltd [2020] HKCFI 891 and Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd v Nie Hai Yan Annie [2021] 2 HKLRD 425. In Standard Chartered Bank, the Court considered that the application to give evidence by video link was a tactical maneuver on the part of the defendant, who was the author of her own misfortune by not making timely preparations to attend the trial in Hong Kong around the time of the Covid-19 pandemic. In Re Nobility School, the Court was again not sympathetic towards the witnesses who were unwilling to have their business commitments interfered with during the periods of quarantine required if they should have to travel to Hong Kong. In this case, LH was prevented from coming to Hong Kong because of the restrictions imposed by the Mainland authorities on his travels.

10.Since the pandemic and the cases which were decided in 2020 and 2021, there have been improvements in video conferencing facilities, which have become more common and are also more reliable. I am not persuaded that the 2^nd Defendant’s counsel would not be able to cross-examine LH effectively by video link.

11.Moreover, I agree with Counsel for the Plaintiff, that although LH’s evidence is essential and he must be cross-examined, the issues for determination at trial do not entirely depend or turn substantially on LH’s credibility in relation to those factual matters which are in dispute. The essential issues are whether the 2^nd Defendant is a party to the written Guarantee she signed, which depends on the 2^nd Defendant’s evidence; the construction of the said Guarantee; and the period within which the returns for the Plaintiff’s investment are guaranteed, which questions are of law, and of mixed fact and law.

12.It is open to the Defendants or their representatives to attend at the venue where LH is to give evidence by video link, and for LH’s evidence to be observed and monitored there. As Counsel for the Plaintiff rightly pointed out, any prejudice alleged by the 2^nd Defendant is more imagined than real. Appropriate and any necessary arrangements can be made to ensure that LH can give evidence and be examined in a fair and effective manner.

13.On the other hand, if the Plaintiff’s summons is dismissed, the Plaintiff will not be able to adduce the evidence of LH, and its case will be severely hampered. Bearing in mind the Court’s role, to secure the just resolution of disputes in accordance with the parties’ substantive rights, serious injustice will be caused to the Plaintiff if its application is not allowed, and this must be weighed against any delay in the Plaintiff’s application and any inconvenience which may be caused by allowing the evidence to be adduced by video link.

14.The Plaintiff and the Defendants have agreed on directions, contained in a draft order, which I have considered and accept, since the evidence to be taken is now at a neutral venue.

15.I accordingly grant leave to the Plaintiff, in terms of the draft order submitted, save as otherwise agreed amongst all the parties. The costs including any reserved are to be in the cause, with certificate for Counsel.

Mr David Chen, instructed by Siao, Wen and Leung, for the plaintiff

The 1^st defendant was represented by Ernest Li & Co (taking neutral stance)

Mr John Hui & Ms Regina Yip, instructed by CLKW Lawyers LLP, for the 2^nd defendant