NG YEUNE LAI LIN AND ANOTHER v. FUNG SHUI KWAN AND ANOTHER

NG YEUNE LAI LIN AND ANOTHER v. FUNG SHUI KWAN AND ANOTHER

The consent order and Order 38 r.37 require that experts be confined to the substance of their disclosed written reports; accordingly the defendant's proposed expert (Dr Hu) may not give evidence beyond his disclosed report, the defendants' 'Outline of Evidence' is not admissible as expert evidence to the extent it departs from the disclosed report, and leave to adduce expert evidence generally without proper disclosure or supplementary reports is refused.

Citation
NG YEUNE LAI LIN AND ANOTHER v. FUNG SHUI KWAN AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: NG YEUNG LAI LIN; 2nd Plaintiff: NG KAM HONG; 1st Defendant: FUNG SHUI KWAN; 2nd Defendant: NG KAM SHING, THOMAS
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 September 1989
Case Number
HCAP1/1987
Procedural Posture
Probate (high Court) / Interlocutory Application for Directions / Summons for Directions
Outcome
Application refused in part. Dr Hu confined to his disclosed report; leave to adduce expert evidence generally refused; costs to plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Disclosure of Expert Reports, Consent Order, Summons for Directions, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Probate Expert Evidence Disclosure of Expert Reports Consent Order Summons for Directions Costs

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

Parties

NG YEUNG LAI LIN

1st Plaintiff

NG KAM HONG

2nd Plaintiff

FUNG SHUI KWAN

1st Defendant

NG KAM SHING, THOMAS

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate (high Court) / Interlocutory Application for Directions / Summons for Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an expert witness may give evidence beyond the substance disclosed in his written report
  2. 2 Whether a consent order permitting mutual disclosure of reports allowed parties to adduce expert evidence at large
  3. 3 Whether leave to adduce expert evidence generally can be granted without filing supplementary reports

Ratio Decidendi

The consent order and Order 38 r.37 require that experts be confined to the substance of their disclosed written reports; accordingly the defendant's proposed expert (Dr Hu) may not give evidence beyond his disclosed report, the defendants' 'Outline of Evidence' is not admissible as expert evidence to the extent it departs from the disclosed report, and leave to adduce expert evidence generally without proper disclosure or supplementary reports is refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused in part. Dr Hu confined to his disclosed report; leave to adduce expert evidence generally refused; costs to plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Dr Hu's evidence be confined to his disclosed expert report.
  • In particular, insofar as the 'Outline of Evidence' departs from Dr Hu's disclosed report, no expert evidence may be led on it.