FONG YU SUM v. SAE IA ANGKHANA AND ANOTHER

FONG YU SUM v. SAE IA ANGKHANA AND ANOTHER

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed defences arise from existing pleaded facts, do not introduce new factual allegations, and no uncompensable prejudice to the plaintiff was shown; a supplemental joint orthopaedic report was permitted because the current reports did not address whether the injuries could result from the accidental fall alleged by defendants and the trial judge requires expert assistance on that specific causation issue.

Citation
FONG YU SUM v. SAE IA ANGKHANA AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Fong Yu Sum; 1st Defendant: Sae Ia Angkhana; 2nd Defendant: Cheng Worawan
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 November 2014
Case Number
DCPI2010/2012
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Pre Trial Review
Outcome
Application to amend Defence allowed; application for supplemental joint expert report allowed; other applications (postponement) not pursued; certain paragraphs of summons withdrawn; costs allocated; certificate for counsel granted.
Legal Topics
Assault, Self Defence, Ex Turpi Causa, Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Contributory Negligence, Amendment of Pleadings, Expert Evidence, Costs, Counsel Certificate
Source Language
EN
Tort Personal Injury Civil Procedure Evidence Assault Self Defence Ex Turpi Causa Volenti Non Fit Injuria +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 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fong Yu Sum

Plaintiff

Sae Ia Angkhana

1st Defendant

Cheng Worawan

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Pre Trial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants should be granted leave to amend their Defence to plead ex turpi, volenti and contributory negligence
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments are a late procedural move causing prejudice
  3. 3 Whether a supplemental expert report on causation should be permitted

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed defences arise from existing pleaded facts, do not introduce new factual allegations, and no uncompensable prejudice to the plaintiff was shown; a supplemental joint orthopaedic report was permitted because the current reports did not address whether the injuries could result from the accidental fall alleged by defendants and the trial judge requires expert assistance on that specific causation issue.

Court Disposition

Application to amend Defence allowed; application for supplemental joint expert report allowed; other applications (postponement) not pursued; certain paragraphs of summons withdrawn; costs allocated; certificate for counsel granted.

Orders

  • Defendants to file and serve the amended Defence within 7 days from decision based on draft submitted at hearing
  • Plaintiff granted leave to file and serve a Reply, if so advised, within 14 days after service of the amended Defence