C v. S

C v. S

Although retrospective leave to disclose documents and have the expert involved was granted in principle, the court excluded the expert report: Dr Wong's 2nd Report was held not sufficiently relevant or helpful, relied on old or unadmitted material and documentary diagnosis without recent examination of the child or mother, and admitting it would risk delay, re‑opening adjudicated issues and undermining the imminent trial and the child's ongoing treatment; accordingly the Expert Summons was dismissed and costs ordered against Father.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 937
Parties
Plaintiff: C; Defendant: S
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 May 2020
Case Number
HCMP929/2017
Procedural Posture
Wardship/guardianship Proceedings (application to Vary Custody) / Interlocutory Hearings on Expert Evidence and Retrospective Leave Prior to Fixed Trial
Outcome
Retrospective leave granted (in principle) but Expert Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Retrospective Leave for Disclosure, Parental Alienation, Custody Variation, Confidentiality and Contempt, Trial Management, Costs
Source Language
EN
Family Law Wardship/guardianship Evidence Law Child Protection Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Retrospective Leave for Disclosure Parental Alienation +4 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 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Plaintiff

S

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Wardship/guardianship Proceedings (application to Vary Custody) / Interlocutory Hearings on Expert Evidence and Retrospective Leave Prior to Fixed Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether retrospective leave should be granted for disclosure of court documents and for the child to be seen by the expert
  2. 2 Whether the expert report (Dr Wong's 2nd Report) is admissible and relevant given it relied on documents and the expert had not examined the mother or recently examined the child
  3. 3 Whether disclosure and commissioning of expert evidence without court leave constituted contempt and procedural non‑compliance

Ratio Decidendi

Although retrospective leave to disclose documents and have the expert involved was granted in principle, the court excluded the expert report: Dr Wong's 2nd Report was held not sufficiently relevant or helpful, relied on old or unadmitted material and documentary diagnosis without recent examination of the child or mother, and admitting it would risk delay, re‑opening adjudicated issues and undermining the imminent trial and the child's ongoing treatment; accordingly the Expert Summons was dismissed and costs ordered against Father.

Court Disposition

Retrospective leave granted (in principle) but Expert Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Expert Summons dismissed
  • Costs of and incidental to the two summonses to be paid by Father, to be summarily assessed and paid by Father within 14 days of summary assessment