LIU CHEN v. CHAN POON WING AND ANOTHER

LIU CHEN v. CHAN POON WING AND ANOTHER

The application was refused because the plaintiff failed to show prima facie evidence that additional psychiatric, ENT or ophthalmological reports were necessary and because Order 25 r8 was procedurally inapplicable; absent evidence of necessity the court will not permit further expert reports beyond those limited at Check List Review.

Citation
LIU CHEN v. CHAN POON WING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: LIU CHEN; 1st Defendant (discontinued): CHAN POON WING; 2nd Defendant: KEUNG WAI MING
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 June 2008
Case Number
HCPI779/2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Obtain Expert Medical Reports at Check List Review
Outcome
Application by Summons dated 3 June 2008 refused on merits and procedural grounds
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Necessity Test, Case Management, Costs, Procedural Rules (order 25 R8)
Source Language
EN
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Evidence Medical Expert Evidence Expert Evidence Necessity Test Case Management Costs +1 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LIU CHEN

Plaintiff

CHAN POON WING

1st Defendant (discontinued)

KEUNG WAI MING

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Obtain Expert Medical Reports at Check List Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prima facie necessity established for additional expert reports (psychiatrist, ENT, ophthalmologist)
  2. 2 Whether Order 25 r8 Rules of the High Court applied to obtain those reports
  3. 3 Burden on parties/legal representatives to show necessity

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the plaintiff failed to show prima facie evidence that additional psychiatric, ENT or ophthalmological reports were necessary and because Order 25 r8 was procedurally inapplicable; absent evidence of necessity the court will not permit further expert reports beyond those limited at Check List Review.

Court Disposition

Application by Summons dated 3 June 2008 refused on merits and procedural grounds

Orders

  • Summons dated 3 June 2008 refused for lack of prima facie necessity for psychiatric, ENT and ophthalmological reports
  • Application also refused as Order 25 r8 does not apply in the circumstances