Hong Kong Judgment

Court of First Instance

SINGH SUKHDEV v. GREAT EXPECT DEVELOPMENT LTD

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

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
  • Dr. Tsoi to inform the Court whether he had ever seen the documents referred to in items 2 and 3 of his report
  • A copy of Dr. Tsoi's explanation to be sent to the defendant's solicitors and to the Court within 14 days after receipt of the letter
  • Costs of the Check List hearing to be to the defendant in any event

02

Material facts

Parties

SINGH SUKHDEV

Plaintiff Counsel: Mr John Wright (Messrs John M. Pickavant & Co.)

GREAT EXPECT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Defendant Counsel: Ms E. Chan (Messrs Day & Chan)

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

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

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Master should not have made the order requiring the expert's own explanation. The solicitors had proffered explanations that the errors were typographical and had supplied a revised page 2 of the expert report; the Check List hearing was unnecessary.
Respondent
The Master was entitled to seek clarification and to require the expert himself to explain the alleged typographical errors to ensure proper disclosure and case management; the Master's directions were appropriate.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court's case management discretion (observed in judgment)

    Court has broad case management discretion to seek clarification and give directions on disclosure

  2. 02

    Principle of expert responsibility (observed in judgment)

    Explanation for alleged errors in an expert report should be provided by the expert to preserve the integrity of the evidence

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

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.

Obiter and limits

  • Nothing wrong with the course adopted by the Master as a matter of case management
  • The replacement of page 2 by the plaintiff's solicitors without an explanation from the expert was treated as insufficient by the Master

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed

  • 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
  • Dr. Tsoi to inform the Court whether he had ever seen the documents referred to in items 2 and 3 of his report
  • A copy of Dr. Tsoi's explanation to be sent to the defendant's solicitors and to the Court within 14 days after receipt of the letter
  • Costs of the Check List hearing to be 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.

Source document

Court of First Instance

Judgment· 13 March 2007

SINGH SUKHDEV v. GREAT EXPECT DEVELOPMENT LTD

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

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.