25 Jun 2024
CHAN KI v. GENERAL SECURITY (H.K.) LTD
- Citation
- [2024] HKDC 1689
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCEC1808/2022
The summons was dismissed because the proposed cardiology expert evidence was not shown to be relevant or necessary: there was no evidence that vasovagal attack is a cardiological condition or that the proposed expert had relevant experience with insect-bite-induced vasovagal attacks, the core factual dispute (whether insect bites occurred) is for fact-finding at trial and not resolved by a cardiologist, the application was disproportionate in cost relative to the likely value of the claim, and admitting the expert would cause delay contrary to the objectives of the compensation regime.