上訴提交新證據的條件？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：JIC Trust Co., Ltd v China Properties Group Limited - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：關淑馨副庭長、張澤平上訴法官、林雲浩上訴法官 - 判決日期：2025年3月18日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於JIC Trust Co., Ltd（呈請人）向China Properties Group Limited（公司）提出的清盤呈請。呈請人基於浙江省高級人民法院於2020年4月3日頒布的一份同意判決（Consent Judgment），向公司追討人民幣731,801,596.56元的債務。該債務源於呈請人與公司附屬公司上海靜安協和房地產有限公司（JAC）之間的一筆委託貸款，公司為此提供了擔保。公司未能償還債務，導致呈請人提出清盤呈請。原訟法庭法官駁回公司對呈請的質疑，並頒布清盤令。公司隨後提出上訴，並試圖提交新證據。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於公司是否能成功提交新證據，以證明呈請人已將債務轉讓予第三方，因此缺乏提出清盤呈請的訴訟資格 (locus standi)。公司主張，由於債務轉讓，存在對債務的真實爭議 (bona fide dispute)。呈請人則反駁指公司早於2020年已獲悉債務轉讓事宜，並已撤回相關質疑，因此新證據不符合提交新證據的嚴格條件。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭根據《Ladd v Marshall》案確立的原則，審視公司提交新證據的申請。法庭裁定，公司未能滿足該原則的第一及第二項條件，即新證據無法在原審時以合理努力獲得，且新證據若被採納，將對案件結果產生重要影響。法庭指出，浙江省的訴訟筆錄顯示，公司早在2020年已獲悉債務轉讓問題，並曾就此提出質疑，但最終選擇撤回並同意和解。因此，公司無法證明其在清盤令頒布後才知悉債務轉讓事宜。法庭認為公司現時的爭議是「絕望的最後一搏」。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了《Ladd v Marshall》案確立的提交新證據的三項嚴格條件，即：1) 該證據在原審時無法以合理努力獲得；2) 該證據若被採納，將對案件結果產生重要影響；3) 該證據必須是可信的。法庭根據這些原則駁回了公司提交新證據的申請。此外，法庭也提及了《Re Tam Mei Kam CACV 87/2012》和《Re Sun Fung Timber Company Limited [2021] HKCA 1660》兩宗案件，但未詳細分析其對本案的影響。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回了公司提交新證據的申請，並因此駁回了公司的上訴。法庭亦應呈請人的申請，頒布命令剔除上訴。公司須以彌償基準（indemnity basis）支付呈請人就上訴及相關傳票的訟費，並批准委聘兩名大律師的證明書。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了上訴法庭在處理提交新證據申請時的嚴格立場，強調上訴並非「第二次審訊」。法庭明確指出，當事人應在原訟法庭階段全面披露所有相關文件並提交所有證據。對於不具理據的申請，上訴法庭將會施加懲罰性訟費命令。此判決對日後上訴案件中試圖引入新證據的當事人具有警示作用。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: JIC Trust Co., Ltd v China Properties Group Limited - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Kwan VP, Cheung JA, G Lam JA - Date of Judgment: 18 March 2025 ### Factual Background This case originated from a winding-up petition filed by JIC Trust Co., Ltd (the Petitioner) against China Properties Group Limited (the Company). The Petitioner sought to recover a debt of RMB 731,801,596.56 based on a Consent Judgment granted by the Higher People’s Court of Zhejiang Province on 3 April 2020. The debt arose from an entrusted loan agreement between the Petitioner and Shanghai Jingan Concord Real Estate Co. Ltd (JAC), a subsidiary of the Company, with the Company providing a guarantee. The Company failed to repay the debt, leading to the winding-up petition. The judge at first instance dismissed the Company's challenge and ordered its winding-up. The Company appealed and sought to adduce new evidence. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the Company could successfully adduce new evidence to prove that the Petitioner had assigned the debt to a third party, thereby lacking the necessary standing (locus standi) to present the winding-up petition. The Company argued that this assignment constituted a bona fide dispute of the debt. The Petitioner countered that the Company was aware of the assignment issue as early as 2020 and had withdrawn its related challenge, thus the new evidence did not meet the stringent conditions for admission. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal reviewed the Company's application to adduce new evidence based on the principles established in Ladd v Marshall. The Court found that the Company failed to satisfy the first and second limbs of the test: that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at the hearing below, and that it would or might have an important influence on the result. The Court noted that the transcript of the Zhejiang proceedings showed the Company was aware of the assignment issue in 2020, raised it, but then chose to withdraw its objection and settle. Therefore, the Company could not claim it only discovered the assignment after the winding-up order. The Court characterized the Company's current dispute as a "desperate last ditch attempt." ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case primarily relied on the three stringent conditions for admitting new evidence established in Ladd v Marshall: 1) the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial; 2) the evidence would or might, if believed, have an important influence on the result of the case; and 3) the evidence must be credible. The Court dismissed the Company's application to adduce new evidence based on these principles. Re Tam Mei Kam CACV 87/2012 and Re Sun Fung Timber Company Limited [2021] HKCA 1660 were also mentioned but not extensively analyzed for their impact on this case. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the Company's application to adduce new evidence and consequently dismissed its appeal. The Court also granted the Petitioner's application to strike out the appeal. The Company was ordered to pay the Petitioner's costs for the appeal and the summonses on an indemnity basis, due to the unmeritorious nature of the appeal and application. A certificate for two counsel was granted. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the Court of Appeal's strict stance on admitting new evidence, emphasizing that an appeal is not a "second trial." The Court clearly stated that parties should fully disclose all relevant documents and adduce all evidence at the first instance proceedings. The Court will impose punitive costs orders against unmeritorious applications. This ruling serves as a warning to parties attempting to introduce new evidence in future appeal cases. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.