MA TAK KIN JOHN v. DR YU CHUNG PING

MA TAK KIN JOHN v. DR YU CHUNG PING

Interrogatories withdrawn because they sought information obtainable by cross-examination and plaintiff failed to show essential need or irremediable prejudice if left to trial; leave to amend Statement of Claim granted because the proposed motive particulars were not wholly irrelevant or merely scandalous given material before the court and could support negligence if proved; psychiatric expert report refused because available material did not show ongoing psychiatric disorder or current suicidal risk and commissioning the report would be disproportionate and wasteful.

Citation
MA TAK KIN JOHN v. DR YU CHUNG PING
Parties
Plaintiff (infant): MA TAK KIN JOHN (an infant) suing by his father and next friend MA HON MAN; Defendant (consultant Neurosurgeon): DR YU CHUNG PING
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 June 2006
Case Number
HCPI614/2002
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries (medical Negligence) / Interlocutory Applications and Pre Trial Review (in Chambers)
Outcome
Interrogatories withdrawn; leave granted to amend Statement of Claim with timings for amended pleadings; application for psychiatric expert refused; pre-trial directions and costs orders made (orders nisi).
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Leave to Amend Statement of Claim, Pre Trial Review, Expert Evidence (psychiatric), Disclosure, Costs Orders
Source Language
EN
Medical Negligence Personal Injury Civil Procedure Evidence Costs Interrogatories Leave to Amend Statement of Claim Pre Trial Review +3 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MA TAK KIN JOHN (an infant) suing by his father and next friend MA HON MAN

Plaintiff (infant)

DR YU CHUNG PING

Defendant (consultant Neurosurgeon)

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries (medical Negligence) / Interlocutory Applications and Pre Trial Review (in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interrogatories served by plaintiff should be ordered withdrawn
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend Statement of Claim to plead defendant's alleged self-interest (motive)
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff should be permitted to commission a psychiatric expert report

Ratio Decidendi

Interrogatories withdrawn because they sought information obtainable by cross-examination and plaintiff failed to show essential need or irremediable prejudice if left to trial; leave to amend Statement of Claim granted because the proposed motive particulars were not wholly irrelevant or merely scandalous given material before the court and could support negligence if proved; psychiatric expert report refused because available material did not show ongoing psychiatric disorder or current suicidal risk and commissioning the report would be disproportionate and wasteful.

Court Disposition

Interrogatories withdrawn; leave granted to amend Statement of Claim with timings for amended pleadings; application for psychiatric expert refused; pre-trial directions and costs orders made (orders nisi).

Orders

  • Interrogatories filed 4 March 2006 and served on defendant be withdrawn
  • Order nisi that plaintiff pay defendant costs of and occasioned by the application to withdraw interrogatories; plaintiff's own costs taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations