THAPA KRISHNA v. RAJ WO HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER

THAPA KRISHNA v. RAJ WO HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER

The court allowed the four supplemental witness statements as relevant and not unduly prejudicial or delayed; refused leave to adduce the solo report obtained after a joint report without leave because it undermined case management; admitted the joint expert report without calling the doctors for oral evidence as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
THAPA KRISHNA v. RAJ WO HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Thapa Krishna Raj; 1st Defendant: Wo Hing Construction Company Limited; 2nd Defendant: Keep Ford (Hong Kong) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 March 2009
Case Number
HCPI309/2007
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Pre Trial Review / Case Management
Outcome
Supplemental witness statements allowed; solo report of Dr Lam disallowed; joint expert report admitted without oral evidence; experts not called; trial fixed in Running List with three days reserved; costs in the cause with Legal Aid taxation for the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Pre Existing Condition, Joint Medical Report, Solo Medical Report, Witness Statements, Surveillance Evidence, Leave to Adduce Evidence, Calling Expert Witnesses, Case Management, Costs
Source Language
en
Personal Injury Tort Employment Medical Evidence Civil Procedure Pre Existing Condition Joint Medical Report Solo Medical Report +6 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thapa Krishna Raj

Plaintiff

Wo Hing Construction Company Limited

1st Defendant

Keep Ford (Hong Kong) Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Pre Trial Review / Case Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to admit additional/supplemental witness statements
  2. 2 Whether to admit a solo medical report obtained after a joint report without leave
  3. 3 Whether the orthopaedic experts should be called for oral evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the four supplemental witness statements as relevant and not unduly prejudicial or delayed; refused leave to adduce the solo report obtained after a joint report without leave because it undermined case management; admitted the joint expert report without calling the doctors for oral evidence as further oral evidence was unnecessary; listed the matter in the Running List with three days reserved and ordered costs in the cause with Legal Aid taxation for the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Supplemental witness statements allowed; solo report of Dr Lam disallowed; joint expert report admitted without oral evidence; experts not called; trial fixed in Running List with three days reserved; costs in the cause with Legal Aid taxation for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Allow four additional and supplemental witness statements for the Plaintiff.
  • Refuse leave to adduce the solo medical report of Dr Lam dated 22 August 2008.