Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Expert shopping

Legal area

Court

31 May 2021

CHEUNG TING KAU, VINCENT v. KOO SIU YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1540
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP4/2011

Permission to change the Defendants' psychiatry expert was granted because (i) this was not expert shopping—the original expert's report was favourable to Defendants; (ii) specialist expertise in old age psychiatry is relevant to the central issue of testamentary capacity and Prof Burns demonstrated greater relevant experience than Prof Lieh-Mak; (iii) the Defendants' asserted loss of confidence in Prof Lieh-Mak in that specialist context was a legitimate ground; and (iv) the prejudice and disruption to the Plaintiff were limited and outweighed by the need for a just resolution; accordingly s…
11 May 2021

REDLAND PRECAST CONCRETE PRODUCTS (CHINA) LTD v. AES STEEL MOULD (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1342
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT20/2018

Leave to appoint and rely on the proposed expert was refused because the plaintiff unjustifiably delayed the application until five months before trial causing prejudice to the defendant, the appointment risked expert shopping and bias given the proposed expert's connections with the plaintiff and mediation involvement, and alternatives (clarification, cross-examination) adequality addressed the complaints about the SJE; therefore it was not just or proportionate to allow the further report.
4 Feb 2021

CHOY YUEN ON, DAVID v. LAM KIN CHUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 287
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2599/2014

Applicant established sufficient, non-frivolous grounds (unanswered material queries and omission of very relevant ground-floor comparables in original expert's revised report) that justified substitution of expert to secure just resolution; balancing prejudice and wasted costs the court granted leave to substitute subject to conditions, notably a payment into court of HK$250,000 within 14 days as security; failure to comply results in dismissal of appeals.
4 Feb 2021

CHOY YUEN ON, DAVID v. LAM KIN CHUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 287
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA110/2018

Although no sufficient evidence established a conflict of interest or breach of professional integrity by the original Savills valuer, there were genuine and credible concerns about omissions and unexplained valuation choices (notably omission of relevant ground-floor comparables and unexplained area treatment) that justified allowing a substitute expert to ensure just resolution; balancing case management objectives and prejudice, court granted leave to substitute subject to a condition requiring payment into court of HK$250,000 within 14 days, failing which the appeals would be dismissed.
7 Jun 2018

HO YAT WAH v. CHUNG HANG HIM (the sole executrix named in the will of Madam CHAN YUK MUI, deceased)

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1265
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA731/2014

The court found the reasons for challenging the single joint expert were far from fanciful given his failure to list or evidently consider the medical records; the appropriate course was to adjourn the application to allow the single joint expert to be provided with medical records and for both experts to confer and produce a joint report identifying agreed and disputed matters, after which the court will determine admissibility of the additional expert evidence; costs reserved.
28 Dec 2017

LI CHING HAR AND ANOTHER v. WONG SUK KIT

Citation

LI CHING HAR AND ANOTHER v. WONG SUK KIT
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4566/2014

The appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to provide the grounds or methodology of the proposed substitute expert for the required comparison, the alleged defects in the original expert's preliminary report could be remedied by clarification and completion of tests, the application appeared more as a delaying tactic, and there was unexplained delay and prejudice to the plaintiffs; accordingly no very good reason existed to allow the substitution.
23 Jun 2017

POON KING WAI v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY for and on behalf of PRINCE OF WALES HOSPITAL

Citation

POON KING WAI v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY for and on behalf of PRINCE OF WALES HOSPITAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI836/2014

The Court granted leave to substitute Dr Yip for Professor Tse because Professor Tse had effectively withdrawn and become unavailable, the replacement expert's opinion was substantively consistent, the Defendant failed to demonstrate concrete prejudice from the substitution or delay, and delays could be managed by apportioning costs; accordingly the case must proceed and the substitution was necessary to avoid further delay.
5 Apr 2017

CHANG PUI YIN AND OTHERS v. BANK OF SINGAPORE LTD

Citation

CHANG PUI YIN AND OTHERS v. BANK OF SINGAPORE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL12/2013

The application to adduce fresh expert evidence was dismissed because the defendant failed to show very good reasons to replace its expert at a late stage; the change would prejudice the plaintiffs and undermine case management objectives; the trial on quantum will proceed on the basis of the existing expert reports and cross-examination, and the parties may use a single joint expert if appropriate.
5 Jul 2016

CAPITAL WEALTH FINANCE CO LTD v. LAI YUEH HSING AND OTHERS

Citation

CAPITAL WEALTH FINANCE CO LTD v. LAI YUEH HSING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA686/2012

The court allowed the plaintiff to appoint a new expert because fairness and case management required it given the expert had acted for defendants without plaintiff's knowledge; the 23 March 2016 order was varied to provide a staged process for production (plaintiff to notify examination methods within 14 days of appointment, defendants to respond within 7 days, production within 7 days after agreement); no Unless Order was made because plaintiff had not yet identified a replacement expert; costs of the summons ordered to be costs in the cause.
28 Jan 2016

FIRST LASER LTD v. FUJIAN ENTERPRISES (HOLDINGS) CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FIRST LASER LTD v. FUJIAN ENTERPRISES (HOLDINGS) CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4414/2001

The court permitted admission of fresh expert evidence on the new PRC Judicial Interpretation subject to amendment of pleadings first; rejected the contention that the change of expert amounted to improper expert shopping given the new legal issue; held delay alone did not bar the application absent demonstrated prejudice; ordered pleadings to be amended before adducing the foreign law evidence; made an unless order requiring the Plaintiff to pay outstanding taxed costs and interest into court by a fixed date or face strike out; ordered the Plaintiff to give the usual Practice Direction 11.2…