Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Medical reports

  • 18 Mar 2022

    MAK MEI LING v. DR. POON NAI YUN

    Citation
    [2022] HKDC 247
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI1054/2019

    Both reports were expunged because neither met the definition of a medical report under Order 18 Rule 12(1C) nor satisfied the mandatory requirement for expert reports on liability and causation under PD 18.1 §66(5). Dr Chu's report was irrelevant to the pleaded negligence as it concerned X‑ray orientation and lacked any causal nexus to the plaintiff's alleged injuries; Dr Chiu's report lacked any opinion on causation, was produced by a treating doctor long after the events and did not substantiate the psychiatric particulars alleged, so it could not stand as an expert causation report.

  • 30 Oct 2007

    CHUNG FUNG CHU v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

    Citation
    CHUNG FUNG CHU v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV123/2007

    The medical report was created after proceedings commenced for the purposes of litigation and is therefore protected by legal professional privilege; examination of the applicant by the doctor does not negate privilege; the doctor's referral of the applicant to the respondent's solicitors did not waive privilege; the deputy judge erred in ordering disclosure, so the appeal is allowed.

  • 15 Mar 2007

    CHUNG FUNG CHU v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

    Citation
    CHUNG FUNG CHU v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEC251/2004

    Dr Chapman Chan's report is privileged because he did not examine the claimant and provided opinion in contemplation of litigation under Order 24/5/13; Dr Chu's report is not privileged because he examined the claimant and the claimant is entitled to disclosure of that medical report; respondent must disclose Dr Chu's report within 21 days.

  • 13 Mar 2006

    CHEUNG YUEN FAN SALLY v. HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

    Citation
    CHEUNG YUEN FAN SALLY v. HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCPI107/2003

    The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that expert reports on ergonomics/biometrics, clinical psychology and pain specialists were necessary, relevant and of sufficient probative value given the existing government hospital records and the routine nature of the work complained of; accordingly leave for those reports was refused. The chiropractor's report was admitted by agreement to be treated like government hospital reports without oral evidence; each party was granted leave to adduce one orthopaedic expert report.

  • 17 Feb 1982

    TAM KII-NIN v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    TAM KII-NIN v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC1123/1981

    The appeal was allowed because there was no admissible evidence before the magistrate to satisfy the condition in s.45(1)(a)(iii) that the appellant committed the act charged; for a final detention order under s.45 the magistrate must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt and the rules of evidence apply.

  • 13 Jul 1970

    LEE NAM v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    LEE NAM v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC306/1970

    Given the appellant's lengthy record and limited prospects of rehabilitation but recognising that a substantial term of imprisonment would likely have little rehabilitative value, the appellate court held the original 9 months sentence was excessive and reduced it to 3 months to mark the offence proportionately.