Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Expert directions

Legal area

Court

4 Nov 2024

VIKINGS EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NICHOLSON TOWER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1861
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2986/2022

The appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff, a party and director acting in person, cannot supplant the independent single joint expert or dictate test methodology; the reasons and proposed methods proffered by the plaintiff lacked expert foundation and therefore could not prevail over the expert's proposals; proposed tests and access to the 18/F flat were irrelevant to the pleaded claim against the incorporated owners and fell outside Order 29 rule 3(1) and s40 BMO; consequently the summons ordering the plaintiff's proposed tests and access was refused and costs were awarded against the p…
23 May 2024

SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FERGURSON HONG KONG LTD t/a NEW WORLD MILLENNIUM HONG KONG HOTEL

Citation

[2024] HKDC 792
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2191/2023

Leave to appeal denied because the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or that the interlocutory orders were erroneous in law or plainly wrong; the discovery and expert directions were within the court's discretion and scope of the proceedings, no prejudice from reliance on prior affirmations or from correcting cited rules was shown, expert directions were proportionate and adaptable, and the refusal to adjourn was reasonable on the facts.
1 Feb 2024

CHOW LILY v. CHOW WAI WAI VIOLET AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 423
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP22/2019

The court held that the experts must meet further without prejudice and prepare a joint report in accordance with Master Hui's Order, refused the plaintiff's proposed limitation confining experts solely to materials in their prior reports, refused the defendants' attempt to revert to the earlier February 2022 regime, extended deadlines to allow compliance, and awarded the costs of the summonses to the defendants in the cause; experts may state reasons beyond their original reports when explaining disagreement in the joint report but must respect their overriding duty to the court.
11 May 2023

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IN LIQUIDATION) v. WU XIAODONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1181
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1417/2013

The court granted leave to the Plaintiffs to adduce expert evidence on the FISH, SPR and Valuation issues, granted the 2nd Defendant leave to adduce expert evidence on valuation, directed the parties to lodge agreed draft consequential directions within 14 days, dismissed the Plaintiffs' request to restrain the 2nd Defendant from future interlocutory applications (para 7), and ordered costs to the Plaintiffs on a nisi basis to be paid by the 2nd Defendant.
31 Dec 2021

YEUNG YIN KWAN v. KA LOY CO t/a CALIFORNIA SEAFOOD RESTAURANT

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1634
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2660/2019

The defendant's appeal was allowed and the Master's order dated 19 April 2021 was set aside because the plaintiff failed to show a material change in circumstances or grounds that could not reasonably have been adduced at the earlier 2017 application, the renewed applications were inexcusably delayed and prejudicial to expedition and proportionality under the CJR, the new orthopaedic finding was not shown to be causally linked to the 2013 accident and Master Leong's prior direction that orthopaedic experts give oral evidence made a supplemental report unnecessary; accordingly psychiatric expe…
28 Jul 2011

LPK v. SH also known as HSC AND ANOTHER

Citation

LPK v. SH also known as HSC AND ANOTHER
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11930/2010

Leave to adduce the unsigned draft affirmation of Mr. Cai was refused because the 2nd Respondent failed to give a full and frank explanation for the late application, had previously filed an expert opinion (LYS) in compliance with directions, could have sought timely supplementation by the same expert, the draft was unsigned and untranslated, and admission would prejudice the Petitioner and risk delay contrary to case management obligations under the CJR.
18 Sept 2009

KAM HING TRADING (HONG KONG) LTD v. THE PEOPLE\'S INSURANCE CO OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

KAM HING TRADING (HONG KONG) LTD v. THE PEOPLE\'S INSURANCE CO OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1062/2008

The application to vary the costs order nisi is dismissed because neither party acted unreasonably, D2 obtained expert directions but failed on the single joint expert point, and the Registrar's requirement that parties specify precise issues for experts is within CJR case management powers; accordingly costs will remain in the cause with preparation/consideration of D2's full affirmation allowed on taxation and a certificate for counsel.
4 Aug 2009

WONG KA YEE v. GAY GIANO INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

WONG KA YEE v. GAY GIANO INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC436/2007

Psychiatric expert evidence was admitted because the applicant produced sufficient prima facie evidence of a recognisable psychiatric condition linked to the accident, cardiothoracic experts could not rule out psychiatric causation of chronic pain, and the genuineness and severity of chronic pain (and its psychiatric correlation) are central contested issues that psychiatric opinion would materially assist the trial judge; expert directions were varied to permit one cardiothoracic and one psychiatric expert for each party and procedural timetables were imposed.
2 Jan 2009

WONG KWAN YEE v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF DIAMOND MANSION (NOS. 466-468, LOCKHART ROAD) AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG KWAN YEE v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF DIAMOND MANSION (NOS. 466-468, LOCKHART ROAD) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2576/2007

The Registrar directed that each side may adduce one expert report each: (1) an authorised person to opine on existence of the Opening since 16 March 1965, conformity with approved structural plans, whether it constituted a fire exit, and whether the works required prior approval under s18(2)(a) BMO or s14 Buildings Ordinance and associated Regulations/Code; and (2) a real estate surveyor to opine on rental and sale value with and without the Opening. The directions were granted without prejudice to the Defendants' contention that expert evidence is unnecessary.