TSANG AH SHING suing by his son and next friend TSANG YUN LEUNG v. CHAN HO MING AND ANOTHER

TSANG AH SHING suing by his son and next friend TSANG YUN LEUNG v. CHAN HO MING AND ANOTHER

The summons was dismissed because it attempted to circumvent an unless order whose sanction had already taken effect; the Plaintiff failed to apply for relief from sanction under Order 2 rule 5 within the required period and failed to give proper notice or supporting evidence; even if a proper application had been made relief would likely be refused given the delay, lack of corroborating medical evidence and other non‑compliance by the Plaintiff.

Citation
[2022] HKDC 1245
Parties
Plaintiff: Tsang Ah Shing; Next Friend: Tsang Yun Leung; 1st Defendant: Chan Ho Ming; 2nd Defendant: The Kowloon Motor Bus Co (1933) Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 October 2022
Case Number
DCPI4048/2019
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Application for Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence (paper Disposal)
Outcome
Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Unless Order, Relief From Sanction, Order 2 Rule 4, Order 2 Rule 5, Neurological Expert Evidence, Case Management
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Evidence Expert Evidence Costs Unless Order Relief From Sanction Order 2 Rule 4 +3 more

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsang Ah Shing

Plaintiff

Tsang Yun Leung

Next Friend

Chan Ho Ming

1st Defendant

The Kowloon Motor Bus Co (1933) Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Application for Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence (paper Disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to adduce neurological expert evidence out of time
  2. 2 Whether the Unless Order operated to deem the Plaintiff to have elected not to adduce neurology evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to relief from sanction under Order 2 rule 5

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed because it attempted to circumvent an unless order whose sanction had already taken effect; the Plaintiff failed to apply for relief from sanction under Order 2 rule 5 within the required period and failed to give proper notice or supporting evidence; even if a proper application had been made relief would likely be refused given the delay, lack of corroborating medical evidence and other non‑compliance by the Plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dismissed with costs to the Defendants, to be taxed if not agreed
  • All parties shall submit a list of agreed case management directions to the PI Master by way of a joint letter within 7 days from the date hereof