LAM SIU KONG v. LUCK ON ENTERPRISE LTD t/a OCEAN SUPER SEAFOOD RESTAURANT

LAM SIU KONG v. LUCK ON ENTERPRISE LTD t/a OCEAN SUPER SEAFOOD RESTAURANT

Application refused because psychiatric expert evidence was unnecessary and not of sufficient probative value in the circumstances: psychiatric complaints were not raised in earlier records or assessments, orthopaedic and government medical reports were sufficient for assessment of damages, the plaintiff had limited psychiatric consultations, and allowing further expert evidence would be disproportionate and contrary to cost‑effectiveness principles.

Citation
LAM SIU KONG v. LUCK ON ENTERPRISE LTD t/a OCEAN SUPER SEAFOOD RESTAURANT
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 August 2010
Case Number
HCPI698/2009
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (workplace) / Application for Leave to Adduce Psychiatric Expert Evidence; Assessment of Damages Pending
Outcome
Application refused; costs awarded to Defendant; summary assessment of costs at $20,730 payable by Plaintiff to Defendant
Legal Topics
Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence, Necessity Relevance Probative Value, Psychiatric Expert Evidence, Costs Summary Assessment, Admissibility of Expert Reports
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Evidence Employment Law Medical Expert Evidence Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence Necessity Relevance Probative Value Psychiatric Expert Evidence +2 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (workplace) / Application for Leave to Adduce Psychiatric Expert Evidence; Assessment of Damages Pending

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to adduce psychiatric expert evidence
  2. 2 Whether psychiatric evidence is necessary, relevant and of probative value
  3. 3 Whether alleged psychiatric condition affects employability and quantum of damages

Ratio Decidendi

Application refused because psychiatric expert evidence was unnecessary and not of sufficient probative value in the circumstances: psychiatric complaints were not raised in earlier records or assessments, orthopaedic and government medical reports were sufficient for assessment of damages, the plaintiff had limited psychiatric consultations, and allowing further expert evidence would be disproportionate and contrary to cost‑effectiveness principles.

Court Disposition

Application refused; costs awarded to Defendant; summary assessment of costs at $20,730 payable by Plaintiff to Defendant

Orders

  • Application for leave to adduce psychiatric expert evidence refused
  • Order nisi that all costs of and incidental to this summons be to the Defendant