MR RAVI GIDUMAL AND OTHERS v. DR RICHARD WING CHIU AND ANOTHER

MR RAVI GIDUMAL AND OTHERS v. DR RICHARD WING CHIU AND ANOTHER

The court refused to permit defendants' proposed specific lay-constrained questions and directed that joint instructions be reframed to: (a) require experts to state whether Additional Disclosure changes their diagnoses or prognosis and to explain with reference to specific material if so; (b) require psychiatric explanations of capacity, prognosis and the nature, scope and intensity of work the plaintiffs can undertake, leaving factual determinations (eg actual employment choices) to the trial judge; and (c) invite parties to rework instructions on alternative employment to explain the expert purpose. Costs of the joint application ordered nisi as costs in the cause.

Citation
MR RAVI GIDUMAL AND OTHERS v. DR RICHARD WING CHIU AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Estate of Zubin Mahtani Gidumal (represented by Mr Ravi Gidumal); 2nd Plaintiff: Mr Ravi Gidumal; 3rd Plaintiff: Ms Shalini Mahtani; 1st Defendant: Dr Richard Wing Chiu; 2nd Defendant: Matilda International Hospital
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 September 2017
Case Number
HCPI411/2012
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries (medical Negligence) / Case Management — Expert Instruction Dispute (pre Trial)
Outcome
Court directed parties to rework and finalise the Joint Instructions to the Experts consistent with the reasons given; refused defendants' requested specific additional lay-formulated questions; granted costs order nisi.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Causation, Prognosis, Return to Work, Alternative Employment, Costs
Source Language
EN
Medical Negligence Personal Injury Civil Procedure Evidence (expert Witnesses) Expert Evidence Causation Prognosis Return to Work +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Estate of Zubin Mahtani Gidumal (represented by Mr Ravi Gidumal)

1st Plaintiff

Mr Ravi Gidumal

2nd Plaintiff

Ms Shalini Mahtani

3rd Plaintiff

Dr Richard Wing Chiu

1st Defendant

Matilda International Hospital

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries (medical Negligence) / Case Management — Expert Instruction Dispute (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Experts should be asked novel retrospective timing questions based on adoption papers
  2. 2 Whether Experts must list every event that made a material contribution to the plaintiffs' psychiatric condition
  3. 3 Proper scope of questions to experts on prognosis and return to work

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to permit defendants' proposed specific lay-constrained questions and directed that joint instructions be reframed to: (a) require experts to state whether Additional Disclosure changes their diagnoses or prognosis and to explain with reference to specific material if so; (b) require psychiatric explanations of capacity, prognosis and the nature, scope and intensity of work the plaintiffs can undertake, leaving factual determinations (eg actual employment choices) to the trial judge; and (c) invite parties to rework instructions on alternative employment to explain the expert purpose. Costs of the joint application ordered nisi as costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Court directed parties to rework and finalise the Joint Instructions to the Experts consistent with the reasons given; refused defendants' requested specific additional lay-formulated questions; granted costs order nisi.

Orders

  • Parties to rework Joint Instructions in light of the judgment and dispatch them to the Experts
  • Experts to state whether Additional Disclosure changes their diagnoses or prognosis and, if so, to explain with reference to specific facts or records