CHIU MAN FU AND OTHERS v. CHIU CHUNG KWAN YING

CHIU MAN FU AND OTHERS v. CHIU CHUNG KWAN YING

The court held that experts may validly comment on facts and methodology evident from written witness statements even if the expert's report post-dates oral testimony, but paragraphs that amount to factual criticisms which should have been put to the original witnesses in cross-examination must be deleted; where necessary the opposing expert must be permitted to file supplementary reports and replies to cure any prejudice.

Citation
CHIU MAN FU AND OTHERS v. CHIU CHUNG KWAN YING
Parties
Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs; Defendant: Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 June 2011
Case Number
HCAP9/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Probate/testamentary Capacity / Trial (evidentiary Ruling on Expert Reports)
Outcome
Partial deletion ordered of specified passages in Dr Huang's 2nd Report; certain contested sentences in the 3rd Report were allowed to remain; defendant ordered to file further expert report and Dr Huang permitted to reply; costs ordered nisi in the cause.
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Expert Reports, Cross Examination, Admissibility of Expert Opinion
Source Language
EN
Civil Probate Evidence Expert Evidence Testamentary Capacity Expert Reports Cross Examination Admissibility of Expert Opinion

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

Parties

Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Probate/testamentary Capacity / Trial (evidentiary Ruling on Expert Reports)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether portions of a late expert report that criticize witness examinations without prior cross-examination should be deleted
  2. 2 Whether an expert may comment on matters appearing in written witness statements when the witness has given oral evidence
  3. 3 Whether the opposing party's expert should be permitted to file a reply report

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that experts may validly comment on facts and methodology evident from written witness statements even if the expert's report post-dates oral testimony, but paragraphs that amount to factual criticisms which should have been put to the original witnesses in cross-examination must be deleted; where necessary the opposing expert must be permitted to file supplementary reports and replies to cure any prejudice.

Court Disposition

Partial deletion ordered of specified passages in Dr Huang's 2nd Report; certain contested sentences in the 3rd Report were allowed to remain; defendant ordered to file further expert report and Dr Huang permitted to reply; costs ordered nisi in the cause.

Orders

  • Further deletion to be made in paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4 of Dr Huang's 2nd Report as directed by the judge
  • The contested sentences in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the 3rd Report to remain