FUNG CHUN MAN v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

FUNG CHUN MAN v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

Application dismissed because, although the proposed psychological evidence was from a recognised discipline and potentially relevant, the application was made too late, lacked good explanation for delay, risked disrupting and lengthening the imminent trial and causing prejudice; case management and proportionality...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
FUNG CHUN MAN v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Fung Chun Man; 1st Defendant: Hospital Authority; 2nd Defendant: Secretary for Justice for and on behalf of Secretary for Food and Health
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 June 2011
Case Number
HCPI1113/2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries (medical Negligence) / Pre Trial Chambers Application to Adduce Expert Evidence (leave Sought)
Outcome
Application to adduce expert evidence of a clinical psychologist dismissed.
Legal Topics
Admission of Expert Evidence, Clinical Psychology Evidence, Case Management and Civil Justice Reform Objectives, Proportionality and Costs, Causation, Quantum (future Loss of Earnings)
Source Language
en
Personal Injury Medical Negligence Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Admission of Expert Evidence Clinical Psychology Evidence Case Management and Civil Justice Reform Objectives Proportionality and Costs +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fung Chun Man

Plaintiff

Hospital Authority

1st Defendant

Secretary for Justice for and on behalf of Secretary for Food and Health

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries (medical Negligence) / Pre Trial Chambers Application to Adduce Expert Evidence (leave Sought)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to adduce evidence from a clinical psychologist
  2. 2 Whether the application was unduly late and prejudicial to trial timetable
  3. 3 Whether the psychological evidence was reasonably required and proportionate to the issues and sums at stake

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed because, although the proposed psychological evidence was from a recognised discipline and potentially relevant, the application was made too late, lacked good explanation for delay, risked disrupting and lengthening the imminent trial and causing prejudice; case management and proportionality under the CJR required refusal.

Court Disposition

Application to adduce expert evidence of a clinical psychologist dismissed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the defendants with certificate for counsel.