CHOW LILY v. CHOW WAI WAI VIOLET AND ANOTHER

CHOW LILY v. CHOW WAI WAI VIOLET AND ANOTHER

The Expert Summons was dismissed because the proposed neurologist report was adduced extremely late without acceptable explanation and without relief from sanction for non-compliance with prior expert directions and an unless order; admitting the report (and consequent expert and factual steps) would risk overrunning a tightly fixed trial timetable and prejudice the trial; consequential amendments by the defendants were refused because parties are bound by prior undertakings and there is no justification for further perfection of pleadings at this late stage.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 2945
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendants
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 July 2025
Case Number
HCAP22/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Probate/will Validity / Interlocutory Case Management (pre Trial Directions)
Outcome
Plaintiff's Expert Summons dismissed; Defendants' Miscellaneous Summons (application to amend Re-Re-Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim) dismissed; Defendants' Time Summons granted; costs ordered as set out.
Legal Topics
Validity of Will, Undue Influence, Expert Evidence and Rebuttal Reports, Amendment of Pleadings, Extensions of Time, Case Management and Trial Scheduling, Costs
Source Language
EN
Probate Wills and Succession Civil Procedure Evidence (expert) Medical Negligence/neurology (evidence) Validity of Will Undue Influence Expert Evidence and Rebuttal Reports +4 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendants

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Probate/will Validity / Interlocutory Case Management (pre Trial Directions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff may adduce a late expert neurological report (Dr Robert Ho) without relief from sanction
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff's delay in adducing further expert evidence is justified
  3. 3 Whether defendants may make further consequential amendments to pleadings after undertaking and earlier court order prohibiting further amendments

Ratio Decidendi

The Expert Summons was dismissed because the proposed neurologist report was adduced extremely late without acceptable explanation and without relief from sanction for non-compliance with prior expert directions and an unless order; admitting the report (and consequent expert and factual steps) would risk overrunning a tightly fixed trial timetable and prejudice the trial; consequential amendments by the defendants were refused because parties are bound by prior undertakings and there is no justification for further perfection of pleadings at this late stage.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's Expert Summons dismissed; Defendants' Miscellaneous Summons (application to amend Re-Re-Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim) dismissed; Defendants' Time Summons granted; costs ordered as set out.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's Expert Summons is dismissed.
  • The defendants' application to make amendments to their Re-Re-Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim is dismissed.