CHANG MAN SZE v. CHAN SIU WAI AND ANOTHER

CHANG MAN SZE v. CHAN SIU WAI AND ANOTHER

Leave to adduce the psychiatric and cosmetic surgery reports was refused because, on their face, Dr Chiu's report added little beyond the government psychiatrist's report and was unnecessary, and Dr Chow's report was unnecessary because the new scars and their causation were documented, suggested treatments were optional and the complaint of itchiness was a new, unpleaded issue; the Summons paragraphs 1 and 2 were dismissed with costs.

Citation
CHANG MAN SZE v. CHAN SIU WAI AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Chang Man Sze; 1st Defendant: Chan Siu Wai; 2nd Defendant: Chan Tang Po Lin
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 July 2009
Case Number
HCPI290/2007
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Interlocutory: Ruling on Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence and Directions on Quantum
Outcome
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Relevance Necessity Probative Value, Split Trial, Quantum (damages), Leave to Adduce Evidence, Civil Justice Reform (cjr)
Source Language
EN
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Evidence Medical Expert Evidence Costs Expert Evidence Relevance Necessity Probative Value Split Trial +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chang Man Sze

Plaintiff

Chan Siu Wai

1st Defendant

Chan Tang Po Lin

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Interlocutory: Ruling on Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence and Directions on Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to adduce a psychiatric expert report (Dr Leo Chiu)
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to adduce a cosmetic surgeon report (Dr Chow Sik Kuen)
  3. 3 Whether the reports satisfy relevance, necessity and probative value

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to adduce the psychiatric and cosmetic surgery reports was refused because, on their face, Dr Chiu's report added little beyond the government psychiatrist's report and was unnecessary, and Dr Chow's report was unnecessary because the new scars and their causation were documented, suggested treatments were optional and the complaint of itchiness was a new, unpleaded issue; the Summons paragraphs 1 and 2 were dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Summons dated 23 April 2009 are dismissed with costs to the Defendants.
  • Costs shall be taxed if not agreed, with legal aid taxation for the Plaintiff's own costs.