Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of expert reports

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2024

LEUNG KAI CHUN, suing by his mother and next friend, LAM SZE MAN v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 691
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI115/2022

The court exercised its discretion to grant leave to adduce the three specialist reports as liability/causation evidence but required parties to propose directions to permit the defendant's L&C experts to consider those reports and, if necessary, to obtain and serve further expert opinion; the leave was granted exceptionally to deal pragmatically with the incomplete state of information and to preserve fairness between parties.
29 Sept 2022

H v. W

Citation

[2022] HKFC 211
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8332/2017

The summons to expunge was dismissed: the Addendum, although not admissible as an expert report, may remain in court files as correspondence and HHJ Melloy's direction did not justify wholesale expunction; alleged contamination of expert reports goes to weight not admissibility and must be determined at trial after cross‑examination; the court lacks basis to expunge documents from Social Welfare Department files; L Reports cannot be expunged absent definitive findings from HKPS.
17 Nov 2021

WANG RONGAN v. SILVER INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3436
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1425/2015

The court exercised its case management discretion to allow the late change of expert on condition because (i) the original expert was unavailable through no compulsion by the plaintiff, (ii) the replacement expert merely adopts the original expert's views but that results in one expert and one set of evidence, (iii) the defendants would not suffer irreparable prejudice that cannot be cured, and (iv) further adjournment was undesirable; conditional compliance with expert directions (a without prejudice meeting) and strict costs orders were imposed.
12 Feb 2019

SUN CHEONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KING FU, HO FU, KI FU & KA FU BUILDINGS

Citation

[2019] HKCA 167
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV67/2019

Because Dr Chan demonstrated personal involvement and supervision in the earlier inspections and hammer‑tapping tests underlying the nine reports, his expert evidence in the February 2017 report can properly rely on those earlier reports and the reports are admissible under the 26 November 2015 order without separate leave; however, parts of the August 2009 report relating to infrared thermography carried out by a third party are not within Dr Chan's expertise and require separate leave and are therefore excluded.
3 Apr 2017

RUKHSAR BEGUM v. NATIVE ENGLISH CENTER LTD t/a THE GREEN LOUNGE

Citation

RUKHSAR BEGUM v. NATIVE ENGLISH CENTER LTD t/a THE GREEN LOUNGE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC867/2015

Court admitted and accepted orthopaedic expert Dr Li's reports, computed claimant's pre-accident monthly earnings at HK$8,280 (including basic wage, tips and value of free meals), allowed claimant's appeal against MAB to assess loss of earning capacity at 5%, awarded PSLA HK$180,000 and total common law damages HK$312,427, reduced by statutory compensation HK$113,829 to HK$198,598; retrospective leave granted for one expert report but refused for the 3rd witness statement and costs were apportioned between EC and PI proceedings with specific disallowances.
23 Jun 2014

CHAN YAN CHEONG, THE LAWFUL ATTORNEY OF CHAN YUEN CHOW, THE EXECUTOR UNDER THE WILL OF HO KAM KIU, DECEASED v. CHAN YAN SHUM

Citation

CHAN YAN CHEONG, THE LAWFUL ATTORNEY OF CHAN YUEN CHOW, THE EXECUTOR UNDER THE WILL OF HO KAM KIU, DECEASED v. CHAN YAN SHUM
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ519/2013

Leave granted to adduce the two psychiatric expert reports and to call both experts to give oral evidence at trial, subject to filing statements of truth and amendment of the summons; leave to adduce the unsigned, unverified and speculative supplementary witness statement of Madam Lo is refused; defendant ordered to pay costs of both summonses to plaintiff.
30 Apr 2014

CHEN HA PING HEPBURN also known as CHEN HA PING AND ANOTHER v. LOONG WAN INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEN HA PING HEPBURN also known as CHEN HA PING AND ANOTHER v. LOONG WAN INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1381/2013

Leave to pursue derivative claims was granted in respect of the Misappropriation Issue against Daniel for sums belonging to LS and LW because Daniel was in possession of company funds, no valid defence of beneficial ownership of the Loans or lawful set-off was established, the Dividends Issue was resolved by Daniel's undertaking and the Loans Issue was withdrawn by applicants (to be litigated in a separate action by TK); expert reports were admissible by affidavit in the circumstances and costs were apportioned as set out by the court.
30 Apr 2014

CHEN HA PING HEPBURN also known as CHEN HA PING AND ANOTHER v. LOONG SAN INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEN HA PING HEPBURN also known as CHEN HA PING AND ANOTHER v. LOONG SAN INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1380/2013

The court granted leave under s168BC for derivative actions in respect of the misappropriation (HK$11,375,108) against Daniel on behalf of LS and LW because Daniel was in possession of company funds, no valid defence of beneficial entitlement or board-authorised set-off was made out, and his evidence was opaque; the dividends dispute was resolved by Daniel's undertaking and required no substantive order; the Loans issue was withdrawn from determination because the beneficial ownership dispute was the subject of separate proceedings (TK's action) and the court declined to displace entries in c…
24 Sept 2013

RE JAMES HENRY TING

Citation

RE JAMES HENRY TING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7809/2012

The application was dismissed because the VCF privilege was not justified: the application was inordinate and unexplainedly late and the medical evidence did not establish that the debtor was precluded from travelling to Hong Kong; given the centrality of domicile (a credibility issue) the court required in‑person attendance for effective cross‑examination.
13 Jul 2012

LAU MEI WA v. LI KING YIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAU MEI WA v. LI KING YIN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI527/2011

Leave was granted because the plaintiff displayed psychiatric symptoms temporally proximate to the accident, the causation matrix is complex (pre-existing anorexia, organic brain injury and post-accident events) and treating records alone do not resolve diagnosis, causation, prognosis or future treatment costs; preliminary notes from psychiatrists are admissible to justify a forensic joint psychiatric examination, but a solo forensic opinion obtained without leave (the opinion portion of the Kwan 2nd Report) was redacted and not admitted for the interlocutory determination.