CHOY PO CHUN AND ANOTHER v. AU WING LUN

CHOY PO CHUN AND ANOTHER v. AU WING LUN

The court dismissed the original application for a joint meeting of experts as premature because there was no proper basis at that stage to conclude the defendant's expert would maintain his opinion and because it was uncertain that a joint meeting would be meaningful; however the court granted the alternative...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHOY PO CHUN AND ANOTHER v. AU WING LUN
Parties
Plaintiff: 1st Plaintiff; Plaintiff: 2nd Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant; Deceased Subject of Estate: Mr Au (deceased)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 December 2015
Case Number
HCAP7/2010
Procedural Posture
Probate Dispute / Will Validity Dispute / Interim Application Regarding Expert Inspection and Joint Expert Meeting (decision on Interlocutory Application)
Outcome
Original application for a joint meeting dismissed; alternative relief granted permitting defendant's expert to inspect originals by non‑destructive means; costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Will Validity, Expert Evidence, Discovery and Disclosure, Inspection of Documents, Costs
Source Language
en
Probate Civil Procedure Evidence Forensic Handwriting Analysis Will Validity Expert Evidence Discovery and Disclosure Inspection of Documents +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

1st Plaintiff

Plaintiff

2nd Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Mr Au (deceased)

Deceased Subject of Estate

Procedural Posture

Probate Dispute / Will Validity Dispute / Interim Application Regarding Expert Inspection and Joint Expert Meeting (decision on Interlocutory Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's handwriting expert should be permitted to inspect original documents previously inspected by the plaintiffs' expert
  2. 2 Whether a joint meeting of the parties' handwriting experts and a joint expert report should be ordered
  3. 3 Whether the requested inspection/production is necessary under RHC Order 24 r13(1) given the plaintiffs' disclosure obligations

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the original application for a joint meeting of experts as premature because there was no proper basis at that stage to conclude the defendant's expert would maintain his opinion and because it was uncertain that a joint meeting would be meaningful; however the court granted the alternative relief permitting the defendant's expert to inspect the originals by non‑destructive means since the plaintiffs had not properly disclosed the originals and inspection was necessary to allow a proper comparison; costs were ordered to follow the event and awarded to the plaintiffs (to be summarily assessed).

Court Disposition

Original application for a joint meeting dismissed; alternative relief granted permitting defendant's expert to inspect originals by non‑destructive means; costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Original application for a joint meeting of the parties' handwriting experts dismissed as premature
  • Defendant's handwriting expert permitted to inspect the original documents earlier examined by the plaintiffs' expert by non‑destructive means