Bar Council v Sutherland (No 2)  1 HKLRD 58,  HKCA 1886
In his appeal against a decision of the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal, S sought to adduce fresh evidence in support of his allegation that the Chairman of the Tribunal lacked impartiality.
Held, granting leave to adduce the fresh evidence, that, although the first Ladd v Marshall requirement was not met, the allegation of impartiality would, or might, have had a very important influence on the result of the case. And without the information in question, it would be difficult to properly assess the merits of the allegation of lack of impartiality. So the residual discretion to do so would be exercised to admit the fresh evidence on appeal (Ladd v Marshall  1 WLR 1489 considered). (See paras.5 – 6.)
[The above is excerpted from the headnote to the report in HKLRD.]