MOK KING SUN v. TURN ROUND CO LTD AND OTHERS

MOK KING SUN v. TURN ROUND CO LTD AND OTHERS

Specific discovery against the 2nd and 3rd defendants was refused because contracts with their customers would not shed light on whether a subcontract existed between the 1st and the 2nd/3rd defendants; leave was granted to call the respective psychiatric experts orally because no joint examination had been arranged...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MOK KING SUN v. TURN ROUND CO LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Mok King Sun; 1st Defendant: Turn Round Company Limited; 2nd Defendant: Shui On Plant and Equipment Services Limited; 3rd Defendant: Maxking Concrete Company Limited (formerly Ken On Concrete Company Limited)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 March 2009
Case Number
HCPI865/2007
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Pre Trial Review
Outcome
Application for specific discovery refused against the 2nd and 3rd defendants; leave granted to call the respective psychiatric experts for oral evidence; leave refused to call the plaintiff's treatment psychiatrist.
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Expert Evidence, Psychiatric Evidence, Treatment Evidence, Costs
Source Language
en
Tort Personal Injury Civil Procedure Evidence Occupiers Liability Specific Discovery Expert Evidence Psychiatric Evidence +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mok King Sun

Plaintiff

Turn Round Company Limited

1st Defendant

Shui On Plant and Equipment Services Limited

2nd Defendant

Maxking Concrete Company Limited (formerly Ken On Concrete Company Limited)

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Pre Trial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific discovery of contracts of the 2nd and 3rd defendants was relevant and necessary to prove a subcontract or common duty of care
  2. 2 Whether the respective psychiatric experts should be called for oral evidence or dealt with by joint examination/report
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's treatment psychiatrist should be called to give evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Specific discovery against the 2nd and 3rd defendants was refused because contracts with their customers would not shed light on whether a subcontract existed between the 1st and the 2nd/3rd defendants; leave was granted to call the respective psychiatric experts orally because no joint examination had been arranged and oral evidence was necessary to resolve observed discrepancies and credibility issues; leave to call the treatment psychiatrist was refused because there was no basis or desire by the defence to cross-examine and the matter could be raised in submissions; costs were awarded against the plaintiff for the discovery application.

Court Disposition

Application for specific discovery refused against the 2nd and 3rd defendants; leave granted to call the respective psychiatric experts for oral evidence; leave refused to call the plaintiff's treatment psychiatrist.

Orders

  • Application for specific discovery by the Plaintiff against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants refused
  • Plaintiff shall pay the 2nd and 3rd Defendants costs of the specific discovery application assessed at the gross sum of $2,000