FUNG CHOI KUM AND ANOTHER v. LIU CHI WAI

FUNG CHOI KUM AND ANOTHER v. LIU CHI WAI

Questions 37–50 sought speculative counterfactual information about an insurance contract never entered into by the deceased; such inquiries were not proper as further particulars or interrogatories and should be addressed at trial (by cross‑examination or insurer evidence). The Master erred in ordering further compliance and the order of 30 March 2007 was set aside.

Citation
FUNG CHOI KUM AND ANOTHER v. LIU CHI WAI
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Fung Choi Kum; 2nd Plaintiff: Fung Choi Kum (as Personal Representative of the Estate of Frank Philippe Daigneau, Deceased); Defendant: Liu Chi Wai
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 August 2007
Case Number
HCPI937/1997
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries / Fatal Accident Claim / Interlocutory Appeal Against Master's Order (appeal Heard in Chambers)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Master Kwan's order dated 30 March 2007 set aside
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Further and Better Particulars, Loss of Accumulation of Wealth, Compellability of Answers, Costs
Source Language
EN
Tort Negligence Insurance Law Civil Procedure Discovery and Interrogatories Fatal Accident Ordinance Claims Interrogatories Further and Better Particulars +3 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fung Choi Kum

1st Plaintiff

Fung Choi Kum (as Personal Representative of the Estate of Frank Philippe Daigneau, Deceased)

2nd Plaintiff

Liu Chi Wai

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries / Fatal Accident Claim / Interlocutory Appeal Against Master's Order (appeal Heard in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether questions 37–50 were proper interrogatories or requests for further and better particulars
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs were obliged to provide further answers to speculative counterfactual questions about an intended but unentered insurance contract
  3. 3 Whether the Master erred in ordering compliance and awarding costs against the plaintiffs

Ratio Decidendi

Questions 37–50 sought speculative counterfactual information about an insurance contract never entered into by the deceased; such inquiries were not proper as further particulars or interrogatories and should be addressed at trial (by cross‑examination or insurer evidence). The Master erred in ordering further compliance and the order of 30 March 2007 was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Master Kwan's order dated 30 March 2007 set aside

Orders

  • The order of Master Kwan dated 30 March 2007 is set aside
  • Costs order nisi: each party to bear its own costs for the appeal and for the hearing before the Master on 30 March 2007