WONG KAM LEE v. DRAGAGES ET TRAVAUX PUBLICS (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

WONG KAM LEE v. DRAGAGES ET TRAVAUX PUBLICS (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

Because the Defendant substituted a new psychiatric expert without a joint examination and the experts' opinions were diametrically opposed with material observations by the new expert that the Plaintiff's expert had not had an opportunity to address, the prior reports should be produced and both psychiatric experts should be called to give oral evidence to allow testing of those opinions and avoid unfairness and potential expert shopping.

Citation
WONG KAM LEE v. DRAGAGES ET TRAVAUX PUBLICS (HK) LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 November 2008
Case Number
HCPI824/2004
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Pre Trial Review
Outcome
The reports of Dr C N Chen are ordered produced and the psychiatric experts are to be called to give oral evidence at trial (subject to the trial judge's discretion to dispense).
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Psychiatric Reports, Disclosure, Joint Expert Examination, Oral Evidence
Source Language
EN
Evidence Personal Injury Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Psychiatric Reports Disclosure Joint Expert Examination Oral Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Pre Trial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether psychiatric reports previously obtained from the Defendant's former psychiatric expert should be placed before the trial judge
  2. 2 Whether the respective psychiatric experts should be called to give oral evidence
  3. 3 Whether substitution of experts and separate examinations amount to impermissible expert shopping or necessitate disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Defendant substituted a new psychiatric expert without a joint examination and the experts' opinions were diametrically opposed with material observations by the new expert that the Plaintiff's expert had not had an opportunity to address, the prior reports should be produced and both psychiatric experts should be called to give oral evidence to allow testing of those opinions and avoid unfairness and potential expert shopping.

Court Disposition

The reports of Dr C N Chen are ordered produced and the psychiatric experts are to be called to give oral evidence at trial (subject to the trial judge's discretion to dispense).

Orders

  • Produce the reports of Dr C N Chen
  • Call the psychiatric experts (Dr S Y Chan and Professor Lieh-Mak) to give oral evidence