YIU WAI KAM AND ANOTHER v. OOI IU AIK AND ANOTHER

YIU WAI KAM AND ANOTHER v. OOI IU AIK AND ANOTHER

The amendment was refused because the Defendants produced no expert or evidential basis to establish that non-use of a seat-belt caused or would have materially reduced the deceased's injuries, the vehicle and scene evidence no longer existed, the application was made after an inexcusable delay and would cause substantial prejudice and undermine case management; accordingly the application was dismissed and judgment entered for the Plaintiffs.

Citation
YIU WAI KAM AND ANOTHER v. OOI IU AIK AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Yiu Wai Kam (administratrix of the estate of Hung Po Ying deceased); 2nd Plaintiff: Tse Yuk Yin; 1st Defendant: Ooi Iu Aik; 2nd Defendant: Wong Wai Kee
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 March 1999
Case Number
HCPI1247/1995
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries (road Traffic Accident) / Check List Review Hearing; Application to Amend Defence Refused; Judgment Entered for Plaintiffs; Damages to Be Assessed
Outcome
Application to amend Defence dismissed; judgment entered for both Plaintiffs; damages to be assessed; costs awarded to Plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Amendment of Pleadings, Practice Direction Compliance, Causation, Case Management
Source Language
EN
Tort Road Traffic Law Civil Procedure Personal Injury Law Negligence Contributory Negligence Amendment of Pleadings Practice Direction Compliance +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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yiu Wai Kam (administratrix of the estate of Hung Po Ying deceased)

1st Plaintiff

Tse Yuk Yin

2nd Plaintiff

Ooi Iu Aik

1st Defendant

Wong Wai Kee

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries (road Traffic Accident) / Check List Review Hearing; Application to Amend Defence Refused; Judgment Entered for Plaintiffs; Damages to Be Assessed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend the Defence to plead contributory negligence based on failure to wear a seat-belt
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants had sufficient evidence to establish causation and that seat-belt non-use contributed to death
  3. 3 Whether permitting the amendment after long delay would cause prejudice and contravene case management/Practice Direction requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment was refused because the Defendants produced no expert or evidential basis to establish that non-use of a seat-belt caused or would have materially reduced the deceased's injuries, the vehicle and scene evidence no longer existed, the application was made after an inexcusable delay and would cause substantial prejudice and undermine case management; accordingly the application was dismissed and judgment entered for the Plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Application to amend Defence dismissed; judgment entered for both Plaintiffs; damages to be assessed; costs awarded to Plaintiffs

Orders

  • Application to amend Defence dismissed with costs
  • There is no Defence; judgment entered for both Plaintiffs with costs