YU KAI MING v. WING LEE SCAFFOLDING WORKS CO LTD AND ANOTHER

YU KAI MING v. WING LEE SCAFFOLDING WORKS CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Interrogatories were disallowed because they sought primary facts ascertainable from the plaintiff's own investigation and from evidence at trial, would usurp cross-examination, were not necessary to dispose fairly of the cause or to save costs, and thus the interlocutory discretion favoured refusal even assuming similar-fact evidence might be admissible.

Citation
YU KAI MING v. WING LEE SCAFFOLDING WORKS CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Yu Kai Ming; 1st Defendant: Wing Lee Scaffolding Works Company Limited; 2nd Defendant: Chevalier (Construction) Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 August 2005
Case Number
HCPI1107/2002
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Appeal From Master’s Order (interlocutory)
Outcome
Interlocutory appeal dismissed insofar as interrogatories were sought; interrogatories disallowed.
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Similar Fact Evidence, Discovery, Negligence, Costs
Source Language
EN
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Evidence Workplace Safety Company Law Interrogatories Similar Fact Evidence Discovery +2 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yu Kai Ming

Plaintiff

Wing Lee Scaffolding Works Company Limited

1st Defendant

Chevalier (Construction) Company Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Appeal From Master’s Order (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of similar fact evidence
  2. 2 Whether interrogatories are necessary or an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether interrogatories duplicate or usurp cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

Interrogatories were disallowed because they sought primary facts ascertainable from the plaintiff's own investigation and from evidence at trial, would usurp cross-examination, were not necessary to dispose fairly of the cause or to save costs, and thus the interlocutory discretion favoured refusal even assuming similar-fact evidence might be admissible.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory appeal dismissed insofar as interrogatories were sought; interrogatories disallowed.

Orders

  • Interrogatories served by plaintiff are disallowed and must be withdrawn.
  • Plaintiff to pay the costs of the application and of the second day of the appeal to the 1st defendant.