TONG HO WING v. WONG FUK AND ANOTHER

TONG HO WING v. WONG FUK AND ANOTHER

The appeal is dismissed because the expert report was irrelevant to liability: the case is a straightforward running down incident with eyewitnesses, the report relied on post-event observations and calculations that do not determine immediate pre-impact facts, and many conclusions drawn by the expert improperly invade the judge's fact-finding role; therefore the Acting Registrar's order excluding expert liability evidence is upheld.

Citation
TONG HO WING v. WONG FUK AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (infant): Tong Ho Wing; Next Friend (mother): Chan Ho Mui; 1st Defendant: Wong Fuk; 2nd Defendant: Cheung Kam Yau
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 July 2000
Case Number
HCPI1369/1999
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (road Traffic) / Appeal (rehearing From Acting Registrar's Checklist Review Order)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order of Acting Registrar Chan upheld.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Expert Reports, Road Traffic Accidents, Contributory Negligence, Checklist Review
Source Language
EN
Tort Negligence Evidence Civil Procedure Personal Injury Admissibility of Expert Evidence Expert Reports Road Traffic Accidents +2 more

Case Brief

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tong Ho Wing

Plaintiff (infant)

Chan Ho Mui

Next Friend (mother)

Wong Fuk

1st Defendant

Cheung Kam Yau

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (road Traffic) / Appeal (rehearing From Acting Registrar's Checklist Review Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expert evidence on liability is admissible in a simple road traffic 'running down' case with eyewitnesses
  2. 2 Whether an expert report not filed at the checklist review hearing but dated before it should be admitted
  3. 3 Whether expert opinion improperly usurps the judge's function to draw inferences of fact and negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the expert report was irrelevant to liability: the case is a straightforward running down incident with eyewitnesses, the report relied on post-event observations and calculations that do not determine immediate pre-impact facts, and many conclusions drawn by the expert improperly invade the judge's fact-finding role; therefore the Acting Registrar's order excluding expert liability evidence is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order of Acting Registrar Chan upheld.

Orders

  • Order that no expert evidence on liability shall be adduced in written or oral form at the trial (order of Acting Registrar Chan affirmed)
  • Appeal dismissed