TANG TAK PING v. KAI SHING CONSTRUCTION CO AND ANOTHER

TANG TAK PING v. KAI SHING CONSTRUCTION CO AND ANOTHER

The court exercised its case management discretion to grant leave for psychiatric expert evidence because the privately obtained report (Dr Leo Chiu) established a prima facie need; however the privately instructed psychiatrist was disqualified from acting as the single joint expert; the parties were directed to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TANG TAK PING v. KAI SHING CONSTRUCTION CO AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Tang Tak Ping; 1st Defendant: Kai Shing Construction Company; 2nd Defendant: Keader Construction Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 February 2012
Case Number
HCPI539/2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Case Management Directions and Determination on Leave to Adduce Psychiatric Expert Evidence (directions Hearing)
Outcome
Leave granted to adduce psychiatric expert evidence; single joint psychiatric expert directed and costs orders made.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Psychiatric Evidence, Case Management, Leave to Adduce Evidence, Joint Expert, Pre Action Protocol, Proportionality
Source Language
en
Civil Personal Injury Evidence Costs Expert Evidence Psychiatric Evidence Case Management Leave to Adduce Evidence +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tang Tak Ping

Plaintiff

Kai Shing Construction Company

1st Defendant

Keader Construction Company Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Case Management Directions and Determination on Leave to Adduce Psychiatric Expert Evidence (directions Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was required to obtain leave under PD18.1 before commissioning a psychiatric expert report
  2. 2 Whether psychiatric expert evidence was reasonably required and proportionate to the issues and quantum in dispute
  3. 3 Whether a privately instructed expert is disqualified from appointment as a single joint expert

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its case management discretion to grant leave for psychiatric expert evidence because the privately obtained report (Dr Leo Chiu) established a prima facie need; however the privately instructed psychiatrist was disqualified from acting as the single joint expert; the parties were directed to jointly instruct a single joint psychiatric expert (Dr Chung Si Yuen) and specific costs orders were made reflecting the plaintiff's breach of PD18.1 and the defendants' partial success.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to adduce psychiatric expert evidence; single joint psychiatric expert directed and costs orders made.

Orders

  • Parties to jointly appoint and instruct Dr Chung Si Yuen as the single joint psychiatric expert to examine the plaintiff and prepare a report
  • Dr Chung to conduct the examination only after being provided with all available treatment and examination notes of the plaintiff