CHANG SUI MAN v. WING KEI BAMBOO SCAFFOLDING CO. LTD AND ANOTHER

CHANG SUI MAN v. WING KEI BAMBOO SCAFFOLDING CO. LTD AND ANOTHER

The judge upheld the PI Master's exercise of case management discretion: expert occupational therapists and a surveyor's market‑rent report were unnecessary for determining accommodation and future care issues; most late supplemental witness statements were refused for delay and prejudice except the plaintiff's sister's updated statement; specific discovery of the safety equipment receipt was refused as irrelevant; amendment relating to the sister's income was allowed with consequential amendments for defendants; the Master's costs order awarding defendants HK$35,000 was affirmed.

Citation
CHANG SUI MAN v. WING KEI BAMBOO SCAFFOLDING CO. LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Chang Sui Man; 1st Defendant: Wing Kei Bamboo Scaffolding Co. Limited; 2nd Defendant: E Man-Sanfield JV Construction Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 April 2010
Case Number
HCPI693/2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries / Interlocutory Appeal Against PI Master's Pre Trial Procedural Directions
Outcome
Appeal against PI Master's procedural decisions largely dismissed; limited relief granted to plaintiff (sister's statement and amendment on sister's income); Master's costs order affirmed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Surveyor Report on Market Rent, Supplemental Witness Statements, Discovery, Amendment of Pleadings, Costs, Notional Rent Calculation, Wheelchair Accessibility
Source Language
EN
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Damages Rehabilitation Accommodation Expert Evidence Surveyor Report on Market Rent Supplemental Witness Statements +5 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chang Sui Man

Plaintiff

Wing Kei Bamboo Scaffolding Co. Limited

1st Defendant

E Man-Sanfield JV Construction Company Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries / Interlocutory Appeal Against PI Master's Pre Trial Procedural Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether occupational therapists/rehabilitation experts should be called viva voce for future care needs
  2. 2 Whether a surveyor's report on market rents of alternative accommodation is necessary
  3. 3 Whether further supplemental witness statements should be admitted after delay

Ratio Decidendi

The judge upheld the PI Master's exercise of case management discretion: expert occupational therapists and a surveyor's market‑rent report were unnecessary for determining accommodation and future care issues; most late supplemental witness statements were refused for delay and prejudice except the plaintiff's sister's updated statement; specific discovery of the safety equipment receipt was refused as irrelevant; amendment relating to the sister's income was allowed with consequential amendments for defendants; the Master's costs order awarding defendants HK$35,000 was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal against PI Master's procedural decisions largely dismissed; limited relief granted to plaintiff (sister's statement and amendment on sister's income); Master's costs order affirmed

Orders

  • Refused application to call occupational therapists/rehabilitation experts viva voce for future care needs
  • Refused application for a surveyor's report on market rents of alternative accommodation