LI CHING HAR AND ANOTHER v. WONG SUK KIT

LI CHING HAR AND ANOTHER v. WONG SUK KIT

The appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to provide the grounds or methodology of the proposed substitute expert for the required comparison, the alleged defects in the original expert's preliminary report could be remedied by clarification and completion of tests, the application appeared more as a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LI CHING HAR AND ANOTHER v. WONG SUK KIT
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Li Ching Har; 2nd Plaintiff: Lau Wai Tong; Defendant: Wong Suk Kit
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 December 2017
Case Number
DCCJ4566/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Water Seepage / Property Damage / Interlocutory Appeal Against Master's Order Seeking to Change Defendant's Expert (expert Substitution)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to appoint substitute expert refused.
Legal Topics
Expert Shopping, Change of Expert, Access for Inspection/tests, Costs, Case Management
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Property Damage Tort Case Management Expert Shopping Change of Expert Access for Inspection/tests +1 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Li Ching Har

1st Plaintiff

Lau Wai Tong

2nd Plaintiff

Wong Suk Kit

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Water Seepage / Property Damage / Interlocutory Appeal Against Master's Order Seeking to Change Defendant's Expert (expert Substitution)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to substitute the defendant's expert
  2. 2 Whether the proposed substitute expert advanced cogent grounds not covered by existing reports
  3. 3 Whether the application was a form of expert shopping or a legitimate need

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to provide the grounds or methodology of the proposed substitute expert for the required comparison, the alleged defects in the original expert's preliminary report could be remedied by clarification and completion of tests, the application appeared more as a delaying tactic, and there was unexplained delay and prejudice to the plaintiffs; accordingly no very good reason existed to allow the substitution.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appoint substitute expert refused.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs of the appeal to the plaintiffs with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed