CHAK CHUN ON v. TAI CHUNG WAH AND ANOTHER

CHAK CHUN ON v. TAI CHUNG WAH AND ANOTHER

The plastic surgeon's report was dismissed because it failed the test of necessity, relevance and probative value: the joint orthopaedic report and photos already identified scars and reached maximum medical improvement; the proposed plastic treatments were optional (not necessary), the costs of the report were disproportionate, and parts of the report lacked probative basis (employment prejudice remark).

Citation
CHAK CHUN ON v. TAI CHUNG WAH AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Ms Chak; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant (tram driver); 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant (employer)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 April 2011
Case Number
DCPI871/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury (negligence) / Interlocutory Summons for Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence (paper Disposal)
Outcome
Summons dismissed; leave to adduce the plastic surgeon report refused
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Admission of Evidence, Necessity, Probative Value, Proportionality, Future Medical Expenses, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Personal Injury Evidence Medical Expert Evidence Expert Evidence Admission of Evidence Necessity Probative Value +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Chak

Plaintiff

1st Defendant (tram driver)

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant (employer)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Personal Injury (negligence) / Interlocutory Summons for Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence (paper Disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to adduce a plastic surgeon's report as expert evidence without calling the author
  2. 2 Whether the plastic surgeon report is necessary and has probative value given existing joint orthopaedic report and photographs
  3. 3 Whether proposed future cosmetic treatments (optional) justify award for future medical expenses

Ratio Decidendi

The plastic surgeon's report was dismissed because it failed the test of necessity, relevance and probative value: the joint orthopaedic report and photos already identified scars and reached maximum medical improvement; the proposed plastic treatments were optional (not necessary), the costs of the report were disproportionate, and parts of the report lacked probative basis (employment prejudice remark).

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; leave to adduce the plastic surgeon report refused

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Costs nisi in favor of the Defendant for the summons