HO CHI SING v. TAM KWOK MING AND ANOTHER

HO CHI SING v. TAM KWOK MING AND ANOTHER

The court refused the plaintiff\u2019s application to call an additional pain expert and upheld the Master\u2019s order limiting expert evidence and the plaintiff\u2019s election of Dr Knobler; communications between defendants\u2019 solicitors and their experts are not disclosable absent waiver and were not waived here; contemporaneous notes of examination by Dr Yu and Dr Lee are discoverable; parties\u2019 experts may file medical literature in support of opinions; supplemental witness statement to be served within 28 days; plaintiff to disclose insurance position; cross-examination of defendants\u2019 experts is permitted and TV link examination of the plaintiff\u2019s expert is...

Citation
HO CHI SING v. TAM KWOK MING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Ho Chi Sing; 1st Defendant: Tam Kwok Ming; 2nd Defendant: Lau Kwai Keung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 June 2008
Case Number
HCPI161/2000
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries / Pre Trial Review (ruling)
Outcome
Applications partly refused and partly granted; case certified ready for trial; specific orders made as below
Legal Topics
Chronic Pain, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (crps), Expert Election, Waiver of Privilege, Contemporaneous Notes, Joint Expert, Cross Examination, Medical Literature
Source Language
EN
Personal Injury Medical Expert Evidence Discovery Civil Procedure Costs Chronic Pain Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (crps) Expert Election +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ho Chi Sing

Plaintiff

Tam Kwok Ming

1st Defendant

Lau Kwai Keung

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries / Pre Trial Review (ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff may call an additional pain expert contrary to earlier election and Master\u2019s order
  2. 2 Whether communications between defendants\u2019 solicitors and their experts are disclosable or privileged
  3. 3 Whether contemporaneous notes of examination by defendant\u2019s experts are discoverable

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the plaintiff\u2019s application to call an additional pain expert and upheld the Master\u2019s order limiting expert evidence and the plaintiff\u2019s election of Dr Knobler; communications between defendants\u2019 solicitors and their experts are not disclosable absent waiver and were not waived here; contemporaneous notes of examination by Dr Yu and Dr Lee are discoverable; parties\u2019 experts may file medical literature in support of opinions; supplemental witness statement to be served within 28 days; plaintiff to disclose insurance position; cross-examination of defendants\u2019 experts is permitted and TV link examination of the plaintiff\u2019s expert is...

Court Disposition

Applications partly refused and partly granted; case certified ready for trial; specific orders made as below

Orders

  • Master\u2019s order limiting expert evidence to one neurologist and one pain expert per party is to stand
  • Plaintiff\u2019s application for an additional pain expert is refused