CHEUNG MAN KOK v. CHAN YEE LING ELAINE

CHEUNG MAN KOK v. CHAN YEE LING ELAINE

Defendant failed to make out a prima facie case for further psychiatric expert evidence because existing treating psychiatrists' and psychologist's reports, together with the second plaintiff's acceptance that those reports and diagnoses would not be challenged if the defendant's complaints are found truthful, meant additional forensic evidence was unnecessary; the application was very late, unjustified and would cause substantial delay and prejudice, therefore leave to adduce further psychiatric evidence was refused and the appeal dismissed.

Citation
CHEUNG MAN KOK v. CHAN YEE LING ELAINE
Parties
1st Plaintiff (discontinued): Lee Chui Ying; 2nd Plaintiff: Cheung Man Kok; Defendant: Chan Yee Ling Elaine
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 November 2015
Case Number
DCPI1665/2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Appeal Against Master Chow's Decision Refusing Leave to Adduce Expert Psychiatric Evidence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence, Forensic Psychiatric Assessment, Causation, Quantum, Late Application, Case Management/cjr
Source Language
EN
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Medical Evidence Psychiatric Evidence Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence Forensic Psychiatric Assessment Causation Quantum +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Chui Ying

1st Plaintiff (discontinued)

Cheung Man Kok

2nd Plaintiff

Chan Yee Ling Elaine

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Appeal Against Master Chow's Decision Refusing Leave to Adduce Expert Psychiatric Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant established a prima facie case to admit further forensic psychiatric expert evidence
  2. 2 Whether additional psychiatric evidence is necessary, relevant and of probative value given existing treating reports
  3. 3 Whether the lateness of the application and resultant prejudice and delay justify refusal

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant failed to make out a prima facie case for further psychiatric expert evidence because existing treating psychiatrists' and psychologist's reports, together with the second plaintiff's acceptance that those reports and diagnoses would not be challenged if the defendant's complaints are found truthful, meant additional forensic evidence was unnecessary; the application was very late, unjustified and would cause substantial delay and prejudice, therefore leave to adduce further psychiatric evidence was refused and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order nisi that the defendant pay the 2nd plaintiff's costs of the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel