LIMBU KRISHNA KUMAR v. NEW CHARM MANAGEMENT LTD

LIMBU KRISHNA KUMAR v. NEW CHARM MANAGEMENT LTD

Appeal allowed because there was prima facie evidence of design fault and/or poor workmanship such that expert material testing and analysis were necessary and proportionate to resolve liability issues in the main action and third party proceedings; court ordered a joint expert report and allocated costs against the 1st Third Party for the interlocutory hearing.

Citation
LIMBU KRISHNA KUMAR v. NEW CHARM MANAGEMENT LTD
Parties
1st Third Party: CHUN YIP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED; 2nd Third Party: MLA ARCHITECTS (H.K.) LIMITED (formerly known as MA LEUNG & ASSOCIATES (H.K.) LIMITED)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 June 2010
Case Number
HCPI607/2008
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Negligence With Third Party Proceedings and Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Appeal Against Master's Refusal to Admit Expert Evidence on Liability
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Third Party Claims, Costs
Source Language
EN
Tort Civil Procedure Evidence Construction Law Negligence Res Ipsa Loquitur Admissibility of Expert Evidence Third Party Claims +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHUN YIP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED

1st Third Party

MLA ARCHITECTS (H.K.) LIMITED (formerly known as MA LEUNG & ASSOCIATES (H.K.) LIMITED)

2nd Third Party

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Negligence With Third Party Proceedings and Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Appeal Against Master's Refusal to Admit Expert Evidence on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expert evidence on liability (material testing and analysis) is admissible and necessary
  2. 2 Applicability of res ipsa loquitur
  3. 3 Whether asserted observations are merely common sense or require expert analysis

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed because there was prima facie evidence of design fault and/or poor workmanship such that expert material testing and analysis were necessary and proportionate to resolve liability issues in the main action and third party proceedings; court ordered a joint expert report and allocated costs against the 1st Third Party for the interlocutory hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • A joint expert report to be obtained within 3 months
  • Plaintiff and 2nd Third Party given opportunity to instruct their own experts and to indicate participation; Plaintiff to indicate within 14 days