LEE SAU FAT v. F. H. SECURITY SERVICES CO LTD

LEE SAU FAT v. F. H. SECURITY SERVICES CO LTD

Given the close interrelation of the three actions and the common medical issues, the court required frank disclosure of expert evidence and directed joint supplemental orthopaedic and psychiatric expert reports (with joint medical examination if required) to ensure relevant, proportionate and cost-effective expert...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LEE SAU FAT v. F. H. SECURITY SERVICES CO LTD
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: Lee Sau Fat; Respondent/defendant: F. H. Security Services Company Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 July 2009
Case Number
DCEC1720/2006
Procedural Posture
Employees' Compensation and Personal Injury Actions (related Actions) / Directions Hearing and Case Management (pre Trial)
Outcome
Consolidation of 1st and 2nd EC actions; comprehensive case management directions and timetable; orders for joint supplemental orthopaedic and psychiatric reports and related procedural steps; costs allocated against party conduct with specific limits on recovery for solo expert reports; directions to proceed to PTR.
Legal Topics
Case Management, Joint V Solo Expert Evidence, Disclosure Duties, Costs Allocation, MAB Assessment/form 7 Interaction, Consolidation of Actions
Source Language
en
Employees' Compensation Personal Injury Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Case Management Joint V Solo Expert Evidence Disclosure Duties Costs Allocation +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Sau Fat

Applicant/plaintiff

F. H. Security Services Company Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Employees' Compensation and Personal Injury Actions (related Actions) / Directions Hearing and Case Management (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parties were obliged to disclose existence and content of expert reports obtained for a corresponding action
  2. 2 Whether solo expert examinations/reports were appropriate without court directions and in face of invitations to joint examination
  3. 3 Whether parties may defer EC progression pending MAB assessment/Form 7

Ratio Decidendi

Given the close interrelation of the three actions and the common medical issues, the court required frank disclosure of expert evidence and directed joint supplemental orthopaedic and psychiatric expert reports (with joint medical examination if required) to ensure relevant, proportionate and cost-effective expert evidence; initial solo expert reports shall not attract recoverable costs from the opposite party and each side must bear costs of their solo reports for the joint reporting exercise; actions consolidated where appropriate and specific timelines set for disclosure, witness statements and joint reports.

Court Disposition

Consolidation of 1st and 2nd EC actions; comprehensive case management directions and timetable; orders for joint supplemental orthopaedic and psychiatric reports and related procedural steps; costs allocated against party conduct with specific limits on recovery for solo expert reports; directions to proceed to PTR.

Orders

  • Consolidate 1st and 2nd EC Actions with 1st EC Action as lead action
  • Exchange witness statements for consolidated EC action on or before 31 July 2009