Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Joint expert reports

Legal area

Court

30 Dec 2021

YUEN CHEUK PING v. DRAGAGES HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3869
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI239/2020

Defendant liable for the Accident; contributory negligence not made out as Plaintiff's conduct (jumping) was not sufficiently blameworthy given foreseeable hazard and employer's duty to provide safe access. Joint orthopaedic and psychiatric reports established Plaintiff was fit to return to his pre-accident occupation from 12 July 2019 with reduced endurance; court fixed a realistic post-accident earning capacity of HKD31,000 per month from 12 September 2019 and retained retirement age 65 for loss calculations, awarded HKD200,000 for loss of earning capacity, allowed tonic food HKD3,000 and c…
2 Nov 2016

NG HONG PONG v. LI SHIU TO AND OTHERS

Citation

NG HONG PONG v. LI SHIU TO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2135/2011

The expert reports were tainted by reliance on inadmissible solicitor instructions and unverified medical records; the reports and any joint report based on them were excluded and the court ordered a new joint expert report prepared under the correct protocol excluding consideration of the limited health records.
24 Nov 2014

WU KWONG FAT v. THE KOWLOON MOTOR BUS CO (1933) LTD

Citation

WU KWONG FAT v. THE KOWLOON MOTOR BUS CO (1933) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC812/2014

Leave to obtain further expert opinion was refused because the request sought further comment arising from a joint expert report and should not be made unilaterally under the objectives of PD18.2; the joint report and supplied documents showed the experts had considered the alleged environment and reached a common opinion; no new facts of sufficient significance were shown to justify further expert opinion; causation remains ultimately for the judge.
26 Apr 2013

TANANG PADAM RAJ v. SHEK CHI YAU AND WONG CHING YI t/a PAK TSUN CO AND OTHERS

Citation

TANANG PADAM RAJ v. SHEK CHI YAU AND WONG CHING YI t/a PAK TSUN CO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI613/2011

The court refused the plaintiff's application to adduce the additional single expert report and to file a re-revised statement of damages because the application was expert shopping, lacked objective justification, caused and would cause unjustified delay and prejudice, and the alleged defects could be addressed by clarification or a supplemental joint expert report; the court allowed only a supplemental joint report and ordered written submissions on costs arising from the breach of court orders.
17 Jul 2012

CHEUNG OI YAN RUBY v. WONG HOI SUM

Citation

CHEUNG OI YAN RUBY v. WONG HOI SUM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV259/2011

The Court allowed the appeal because the master erred in rejecting a causal link between the 2004 accident and the MRI findings; the coincidence of a large annular tear and accelerated degeneration at the same level (L4/5), together with the plaintiff's early post-accident complaints and Dr Lam's unchallenged opinion, established causation on the balance of probabilities, entitling the plaintiff to increased damages (PSLA $300,000 and LOEC $100,000) and judgment for $425,000 plus interest; parties should call experts for oral evidence where joint reports leave unresolved causation issues.
21 Mar 2011

WAN YING SHEUNG v. WAN YIU KAN

Citation

WAN YING SHEUNG v. WAN YIU KAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI288/2009

Leave was granted to adduce the Siu and Au Reports and to vary the earlier direction to allow one physiotherapy and one occupational therapy expert for each party because those reports were supplied to and considered by the orthopaedic and psychiatric experts (forming part of their instructions), and on the material before the court the physiotherapy and occupational therapy evidence was reasonably necessary, relevant and of probative value to assess future care, rehabilitation needs and related costs given the objective medical findings and interaction between orthopaedic and psychiatric con…
28 Feb 2011

LUK SHU KEUNG v. KWOK CHI SHING

Citation

LUK SHU KEUNG v. KWOK CHI SHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI848/2005

Court found plaintiff exaggerated symptoms, preferred the defendant's expert opinions (notably Dr. Lam for orthopaedics and Dr. Chung for psychiatry) that the physical injuries were soft tissue with minimal residuals and psychiatric impairment was mild; treatments in Guangzhou and claimed household help and future medical expenses were not proven necessary or causally connected to the accident; employment evidence was unreliable so pre-trial loss and future earning claims were reduced; awarded PSLA HK$300,000, special damages HK$59,815 and loss of earning capacity HK$100,000 totaling HK$459,8…
31 Jul 2009

CHAN LAI YING v. A S WATSON & CO LTD

Citation

CHAN LAI YING v. A S WATSON & CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1767/2006

The court exercised its case management discretion: it refused to allow recovery of the costs of Dr Lai's supplemental psychiatric report dated 29 January 2009, reserved admissibility and recoverability of other solo expert reports, and ordered the parties to jointly apply and propose directions (including for expert evidence) within specified deadlines; the court held that parties must adopt a joint expert approach unless leave is sought and justified, and that withholding information about solo reports between corresponding proceedings is unacceptable.
3 Jul 2009

HUI FUNG PING v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

HUI FUNG PING v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI589/2008

The court refused leave to call the orthopaedic surgeon Dr Wong and the occupational therapists because the issues could be resolved from the materials already before the trial judge; instead the court ordered supplemental filings on future accommodation and revised cost tables and made directions on listing and costs.
1 Jun 2009

TSANG WAI FUN v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

TSANG WAI FUN v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1112/2006

The court exercised its case management discretion to disallow the Defendant's late supplemental orthopaedic report, declined to order a joint psychiatric report, and directed that the existing expert reports be adduced without oral evidence because the judge can resolve the issues of pain severity and psychiatric exaggeration on the existing reports and oral evidence from the parties; the trial was reserved for four days and to be set down within four weeks with costs in the cause and Legal Aid taxation.