SINGH SUKHDEV v. GREAT EXPECT DEVELOPMENT LTD

SINGH SUKHDEV v. GREAT EXPECT DEVELOPMENT LTD

The Master acted within her case management discretion in requiring the expert himself to provide an explanation for alleged typographical errors and to clarify whether he had seen the documents referred to; accepting solicitors' unilateral replacement of part of an expert report without the expert's own explanation was not acceptable. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
SINGH SUKHDEV v. GREAT EXPECT DEVELOPMENT LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: SINGH SUKHDEV; Defendant: GREAT EXPECT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 March 2007
Case Number
HCPI836/2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action (hcpi 753/2005; HCPI 836/2006) / Appeal From Master's Check List Hearing; Judgment in Chambers
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Checklist Hearing, Disclosure, Expert Report, Costs
Source Language
EN
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Case Management Checklist Hearing Disclosure Expert Report Costs

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SINGH SUKHDEV

Plaintiff

GREAT EXPECT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action (hcpi 753/2005; HCPI 836/2006) / Appeal From Master's Check List Hearing; Judgment in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in requiring the expert to provide his own explanation rather than accepting solicitors' explanation of typographical errors
  2. 2 Whether replacement of part of an expert's report by solicitors without the expert's own explanation is acceptable
  3. 3 Whether the Check List hearing and the Master's directions were necessary and appropriate case management

Ratio Decidendi

The Master acted within her case management discretion in requiring the expert himself to provide an explanation for alleged typographical errors and to clarify whether he had seen the documents referred to; accepting solicitors' unilateral replacement of part of an expert report without the expert's own explanation was not acceptable. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • The plaintiff's solicitors to obtain a letter from Dr. Danny Tsoi explaining the alleged typographical errors in items 2 and 3 of his report dated 10 October 2005 within 28 days