LYAG v. YSG (YX)

LYAG v. YSG (YX)

Leave to appeal was refused because the Judge lawfully exercised case management discretion: the two unsolicited letters were not court‑filed expert reports, were partisan and non‑compliant with the formal requirements for expert evidence (Order 38 and the Code), and disclosure raised consent/confidentiality issues; Dr Hung's report exceeded the express court direction and relied on improper input, so removal from the court file was within the Judge's discretion; the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success under the statutory test.

Citation
LYAG v. YSG (YX)
Parties
Petitioner: LYAG; Respondent: YSG (YX)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 November 2016
Case Number
HCMP802/2016
Procedural Posture
Family — Children Arrangement; Intended Appeal From FCMC No.11445 of 2014 / Court of Appeal — Application for Leave to Appeal (renewed)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused and the respondent's renewed application dismissed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Admissibility of Reports, Child Custody and Access, Psychiatric Confidentiality, Case Management, Costs
Source Language
EN
Family Law Evidence Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Admissibility of Reports Child Custody and Access Psychiatric Confidentiality Case Management +1 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LYAG

Petitioner

YSG (YX)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family — Children Arrangement; Intended Appeal From FCMC No.11445 of 2014 / Court of Appeal — Application for Leave to Appeal (renewed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether unsolicited correspondence from a psychiatrist may be admitted as expert evidence
  2. 2 Whether a psychiatrist's report should be excluded for non‑compliance with Part IV of Order 38 and the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses
  3. 3 Whether a psychiatrist's report which goes beyond the court's direction should be removed from the court file

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Judge lawfully exercised case management discretion: the two unsolicited letters were not court‑filed expert reports, were partisan and non‑compliant with the formal requirements for expert evidence (Order 38 and the Code), and disclosure raised consent/confidentiality issues; Dr Hung's report exceeded the express court direction and relied on improper input, so removal from the court file was within the Judge's discretion; the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success under the statutory test.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused and the respondent's renewed application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • The respondent shall pay the petitioner\'s costs of this application to be taxed if not agreed