X v. DR HUNG CHEUNG TSUI AND ANOTHER

X v. DR HUNG CHEUNG TSUI AND ANOTHER

The court allowed the defendants leave to adduce Dr Ng's anaesthesiology report because the proposed evidence is in a recognised discipline, is narrowly focused and relevant to a critical factual issue (reliability of memory after sedatives), and the delay in obtaining the report did not justify refusal as it would...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
X v. DR HUNG CHEUNG TSUI AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: 1st Defendant; Defendant: 2nd Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 May 2017
Case Number
HCPI67/2014
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Appeal Against Master's Case Management Decision / Appeal From Master's Order Refusing Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence; Pre Trial Directions
Outcome
Appeal allowed; paragraph 1 of Master's order dated 13 April 2016 set aside; leave granted to defendants to adduce Dr Ng's expert report; directions given for trial preparation and costs
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Leave to Adduce Experts, Case Management, Sedation and Memory Evidence, Costs
Source Language
en
Personal Injury Medical Negligence Civil Procedure Evidence Expert Evidence Leave to Adduce Experts Case Management Sedation and Memory Evidence +1 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

Defendant

2nd Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Appeal Against Master's Case Management Decision / Appeal From Master's Order Refusing Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence; Pre Trial Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted for defendants to adduce expert evidence on the effect of sedatives on the plaintiff's memory and perception
  2. 2 Admissibility and cogency of the proposed expert evidence and whether it usurps fact-finding
  3. 3 Whether delay in obtaining the expert report justifies refusal of leave and whether prejudice or trial delay results

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the defendants leave to adduce Dr Ng's anaesthesiology report because the proposed evidence is in a recognised discipline, is narrowly focused and relevant to a critical factual issue (reliability of memory after sedatives), and the delay in obtaining the report did not justify refusal as it would not cause significant further delay or prejudice given directions to fix trial dates and the opportunity for the plaintiff to obtain responsive expert evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; paragraph 1 of Master's order dated 13 April 2016 set aside; leave granted to defendants to adduce Dr Ng's expert report; directions given for trial preparation and costs

Orders

  • Leave granted to the defendants to adduce the expert report of Dr Ng dated 31 March 2016 in this action
  • Leave granted to the plaintiff to file and serve an expert report on the possible effect of the sedatives received by the plaintiff during the colonoscopy on 27 January 2011 within 4 months