SINGH SUKHDEV v. GREAT EXPECT DEVELOPMENT LTD
- Citation
- SINGH SUKHDEV v. GREAT EXPECT DEVELOPMENT LTD
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 13 March 2007
- Posture
- Personal Injuries Action / Appeal From Master’s Check List Hearing
- Case number
- HCPI753/2005
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 13 March 2007
- Posture
- Personal Injuries Action / Appeal From Master’s Check List Hearing
- Case number
- HCPI753/2005
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Master properly exercised case management powers in requiring the expert to provide his own explanation for alleged typographical errors; solicitors' explanations and unilateral replacement of the expert's report page were insufficient; therefore the Master's order was justified and the appeal is dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Order of Master B. Kwan dated 5 February 2007 upheld
- Dr Danny Tsoi to provide explanation for typographical errors and confirm whether he had seen the referenced documents as per Master’s directions
- A copy of Dr Tsoi's explanation to be sent to the defendant’s solicitors and the Court as directed
- Costs of the Check List hearing to the defendant in any event
02
Material facts
Parties
Singh Sukhdev
Plaintiff Counsel: Mr John Wright instructed by Messrs John M. Pickavant & Co.Great Expect Development Limited
Defendant Counsel: Ms E. Chan of Messrs Day & Chan03
Procedural history
Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Appeal From Master’s Check List Hearing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Master erred in ordering the expert to provide an explanation for alleged typographical errors in his report
- 02
Whether the plaintiff's solicitors' explanations could substitute for an explanation from the expert
- 03
Whether replacement of an expert report page by solicitors without the expert's explanation was acceptable
- 04
Whether the Master properly exercised case management powers in seeking direct clarification from the expert
- 05
Whether the costs order against the plaintiff should stand
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Master should not have made the order; the solicitors had provided explanations and a revised page 2; the Check List hearing and order were unnecessary.
- Respondent
- The Master was entitled to require the expert himself to explain the alleged errors to ensure proper disclosure and compliance with directions; solicitors' unilateral replacement of the page without the expert's explanation was not acceptable.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rules of the High Court (Hong Kong) / case management principles
Court has broad case management powers to require explanations and ensure disclosure compliance
- 02
Principles of expert evidence and litigation practice
Explanations and corrections to expert reports should originate from the expert to vouch for accuracy and authenticity
- 03
Rules of the High Court (Hong Kong)
A master/judge has discretion to make directions including costs orders in the exercise of case management
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Master properly exercised case management powers in requiring the expert to provide his own explanation for alleged typographical errors; solicitors' explanations and unilateral replacement of the expert's report page were insufficient; therefore the Master's order was justified and the appeal is dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- Master was justified in seeking to ascertain whether all medical reports had been disclosed
- The expert later provided the explanation by letter dated 9 February 2007 confirming typographical errors originating from former solicitors' instruction
- There was nothing improper in the Master requiring the explanation to come from the expert rather than the solicitors
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Order of Master B. Kwan dated 5 February 2007 upheld
- Dr Danny Tsoi to provide explanation for typographical errors and confirm whether he had seen the referenced documents as per Master’s directions
- A copy of Dr Tsoi's explanation to be sent to the defendant’s solicitors and the Court as directed
- Costs of the Check List hearing to the defendant in any event
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 13 March 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 13 March 2007
bjbj HCPI 753/2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 753 OF 2005
BETWEEN
SINGH SUKHDEV Plaintiff
GREAT EXPECT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Defendant HCPI 836/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 836 OF 2006
BETWEEN
SINGH SUKHDEV Plaintiff
GREAT EXPECT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Defendant Before : Hon Sakhrani J in Chambers Date of Hearing : 13 March 2007 Date of Judgment : 13 March 2007
J U D G M E N T
AUTONUMOUT This is an appeal from an order made by Master B. Kwan at a Check List hearing on 5 February 2007. She ordered, inter alia, that (1) The Plaintiff s solicitors to obtain a letter from Dr. Danny Tsoi for his explanation for the alleged typographical errors in items 2 and 3 of his report dated 10 October 2005 within 28 days, i.e. 5 March 2007; Dr. Tsoi shall inform the Court whether he had ever seen the documents referred to in items 2 and 3 of his report; A copy of the explanation of Dr. Tsoi shall be sent to the Defendant s solicitors and to the Court within 14 days thereafter, i.e. on or before 19 March 2007.
AUTONUMOUT She also ordered that the costs of that hearing be to the defendant in any event.
AUTONUMOUT Mr. Wright, for the plaintiff submits that the Master should not have made the above order but should have accepted the explanations proffered by the plaintiff s solicitors. The explanations were that there were typographical errors when referring to two reports mentioned in Dr. Tsoi s medical report dated 10 October 2005 and that the errors had been corrected by a revised page 2 of Dr. Tsoi s report. Those explanations were proffered by the plaintiff s solicitors to the defendant s solicitors in January prior to the Check List hearing. He submits that the Check List hearing on 5 February 2007 was unnecessary.
AUTONUMOUT After the order that was made by the Master on 5 February 2007, it transpires that Dr. Tsoi has by a letter dated 9 February 2007 proffered the explanation that his earlier report dated 10 October 2005 contained typographical errors in respect of two reports mentioned therein. The errors were due to his secretary copying directly the list of documents from an instruction letter from former solicitors for the plaintiff which contained errors.
AUTONUMOUT I am informed that on 5 February 2007 at the Check List hearing the Master sought to clarify the matter and asked the handling solicitors for the plaintiff whether or not she could produce all the medical reports referred to by Part B, page 2 of Dr. Tsoi s medical report dated 10 October 2005. The solicitors for the plaintiff, I am told, informed the Master that the plaintiff intended to replace page 2 of the medical report of Dr. Tsoi and the Master made the comment that the replacement of page 2 by way of the plaintiff s solicitors own arrangement without giving an explanation from Dr. Tsoi himself was not acceptable.
AUTONUMOUT In my view, as a matter of case management, the Master was trying to ascertain whether all the medical reports had been disclosed in compliance with directions given. At the Check List hearing on 5 February 2007 she sought clarification of the same. She was, in my view, entitled to require Dr. Tsoi to provide the explanation that he has now given. The Master apparently took the view that the explanation given by the solicitors should be provided by Dr. Tsoi himself and that is what he has now done. I see nothing wrong in the course adopted by the Master as a matter of case management.
AUTONUMOUT I dismiss the appeal. (Arjan H. Sakhrani) Judge of the Court of First Instance, High Court Mr John Wright, instructed by Messrs John M. Pickavant & Co., for the Plaintiff Ms E. Chan of Messrs Day & Chan, for the Defendant
PAGE
PAGE -
A
B
C
D
E
F G H 1udk 1udk
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V 1udk (#p# (#p# (#p# (#p# (#p# &`#$ r p# r p# (#p# (#p# r p# r p# (#p# "@AB9D / Jz @m2z ]C]6 uxB26I ]C]6 & 6" abc-sak-HCPI.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.