Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Expert evidence evaluation

Legal area

Court

19 Jun 2023

BRIGHT FULL LTD AND OTHERS v. HING MAY PROPERTIES LTD

Citation

[2023] HKLdT 45
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS36000/2019

Leave to appeal refused because proposed grounds were challenges to primary factual findings rather than questions of law with a reasonable prospect of success; the Tribunal applied established legal guidance, properly evaluated competing expert evidence and site inspection, and there was no justification to disturb its decision or to reduce/respondent's awarded costs; therefore leave did not satisfy s11AA threshold.
6 Aug 2021

劉華對香港醫務委員會

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1136
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV152/2020

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal of leave because the investigation committee and Medical Council had reasonably considered the evidence and properly exercised professional judgment in accepting independent cardiology expert opinions; the applicant failed to show illegality, Wednesbury-unreasonableness or procedural unfairness by the committee or that the judge erred in refusing leave; newly advanced materials were not admissible under Ladd v Marshall; accordingly there was no arguable case for judicial review and costs were ordered against the applicant.
7 Jan 2021

HKSAR v. BOLANOS BRUDENCIO JAO

Citation

[2021] HKCA 25
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC10/2020

Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the trial judge erred in his assessment of competing psychiatric evidence on whether the applicant genuinely believed the document to be genuine (and thus lacked mens rea) and that sentencing may have failed to adequately account for the negligible risk of loss and personal mitigation, making the grounds of appeal against conviction and sentence arguable.
14 Jan 2020

LIU WEIGUANG v. LI KENG KO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1745
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2723/2018

Although liability was admitted, on the balance of probabilities the court found the plaintiff fell from approximately 9–10 metres and was carrying two buckets; orthopaedic injuries have largely healed with minimal residual physical impairment but the plaintiff suffers mild psychiatric symptoms attributable to the accident which limit return to his pre-accident work at heights; applying accepted methodologies for loss calculations and relevant authorities, damages are assessed and defendants ordered to pay HK$1,331,866.60 after deducting employees' compensation, with specified interest and co…
15 Nov 2019

LAI SIN YAN ELSIE v. TATA COMMUNICATIONS (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2815
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1092/2015

Court found plaintiff suffered a single minor fall from atop a colleague leading to superficial contusion; Verma and Playlor were not negligent given the low foreseeable risk and practicable precautions; Tata HK discharged its non-delegable duty by engaging competent instructors and is not vicariously liable; plaintiff exaggerated symptoms and psychiatric injury and therefore claim is dismissed.
7 Jun 2018

CHENG KWOK KUEN in his capacity as the Administrator of the estate of CHENG LAM YING LAN, deceased v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 41
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR6/2015

The tribunal held the Lot was not a Class A site because Yu Lok Lane as a whole did not satisfy the definition of a specified street of at least 4.5m in overall width; consequently the Lot was an unclassified site and, on balance of probabilities and expert evidence, the Building Authority would have permitted a 3-storey plus cockloft non-domestic redevelopment under reg 19(3); adopting that hypothetical development and residual valuation parameters the market value as at the date of resumption (9 April 2009) was $2,530,000, which the respondent must pay as compensation.
13 Jul 2017

HKSAR v. EBERT ROBERT JAMES

Citation

HKSAR v. EBERT ROBERT JAMES
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC353/2016

The court granted leave to appeal against conviction but refused leave in respect of specified sub‑grounds because those sub‑grounds were not reasonably arguable given the trial judge’s permissible findings on the reliability of expert testing, the credibility assessments, and the corroborative CCTV/eyewitness evidence; the judge’s conclusions that there was no proven mechanical brake failure and that the appellant drove at excessive speed were open on the evidence.
30 Apr 2008

GURUNG SANTOSH KUMAR v. PACIFIC CROWN ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

GURUNG SANTOSH KUMAR v. PACIFIC CROWN ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI316/2005

Judge accepted defence experts over claimant's psychiatrist, found only a mild adjustment disorder with depressive symptoms (not PTSD), found claimant not credible and malingering, awarded PSLA of HKD 180,000, limited pre-trial loss to four months and no future loss of earnings, allowed HKD 10,000 for future psychological counselling, applied interest as stated and set off Employees' Compensation award, resulting in judgment for HKD 70,058.69.
29 Oct 2007

LEE HAU CHI MARIAM TERESA v. CHUNG CHEE KEUNG PETER AND OTHERS

Citation

LEE HAU CHI MARIAM TERESA v. CHUNG CHEE KEUNG PETER AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1594/2006

Court found the 1st Defendant negligent for electing to move tooth 47 into a deficient 'necked' alveolar space without first intruding/leveling the over‑erupted upper molar (tooth 16), thereby causing retroclination and collapse of the lower anterior segment which necessitated the second surgery; 1st Defendant liable for damages related to the second surgery. 2nd Defendant (service company) not liable. 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants not negligent and claims against them dismissed. Plaintiff failed to prove that root resorption and subsequent mobility were caused by the defendants' conduct to the…
5 Jan 2004

MATTHEW M KINGMAN v. GENTLE INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

MATTHEW M KINGMAN v. GENTLE INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDNT118/2003

The Tribunal granted the new tenancy for three years from 1 September 2003 and fixed the monthly rent at HK$47,000 exclusive of rates and management fee based on revisions to the comparable rents: excluded an unsuitable comparable (Comparable 4), accepted specific adjustments (time, floor level 0.5% per floor, garden area 345 sqm, car parking at HK$3,000 per space) and rejected speculative adjustments (internal condition, appliance adjustments); the Tribunal apportioned weight between the experts and used a combined approach to derive a unit rate of HK$136.4/m2 leading to the assessed rent of…