Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of expert report

Legal area

Court

14 Jan 2026

周文韜對李愛蘭及另一人

Citation

[2026] HKDC 73
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5781/2023

Because liability had been established by default, the court accepted and relied on the plaintiff's expert report where items were evidenced and reasonable, rejected unsupported or unproved items (notably a HKD4,000 window‑sill claim and an unsupported two‑month accommodation period), and awarded proven repair costs (HKD129,500), extra rent (HKD2,340), reasonable temporary accommodation and moving costs (HKD25,000) and general damages for inconvenience and distress (HKD60,000); after agreed deductions of HKD31,325 the total award is HKD185,515, with interest and costs ordered as specified.
5 Aug 2024

KO HOK YUEN v. SZE CHING SHONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1271
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2207/2021

The plaintiff proved the repair costs of HK$240,000 and motor survey fee of HK$900 by unchallenged expert and insurer records; damages of HK$240,900 are awarded with pre-judgment interest from 21 June 2018 at HSBC best lending rate and costs of HK$78,402 awarded to the plaintiff against the defendants.
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.
27 Jan 2010

CHAN KIT HO v. WUN TAK SHUN AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN KIT HO v. WUN TAK SHUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI845/2006

Admit those parts of the Homecare Assessment Report dealing with accommodation, transportation, carer and consumables/equipment as within a home care consultant's remit and useful for cost and provision assessment; strike out sections on psychology, physiotherapy, Chinese medicine and acupuncture, diet, ENT, further education, marriage and children as outside the author's expertise or unnecessary; strike out vague recommendation for a case manager for lack of specification; reserve weight of admitted contents to the trial judge.
6 Jan 2010

YUEN HOK MO v. VSL HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

YUEN HOK MO v. VSL HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI275/2009

The appeal was dismissed because most of the occupational therapist's report expressed opinions on matters (permanence of injury, future earnings, psychiatric issues, medical recovery and reasonableness of sick leave) outside her expertise, the remaining matters were either agreed between medical experts or speculative/irrelevant (e.g. accommodation modifications predicated on wheelchair use), and the report had not been put before the Master earlier with no satisfactory explanation for the delay, so refusal to admit it was justified.
12 Feb 2009

CHAN KIT HO v. WUN TAK SHUN AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN KIT HO v. WUN TAK SHUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI845/2006

Applying the interlocutory principle that disputed expert reports are assessed on their face value with weight reserved to the trial judge, the Master ruled the Flora Lee homecare report just qualifies to be placed before the trial judge for perusal; the trial judge must determine the expert's qualifications and the weight to be given, with particular regard that portions addressing dietary requirements, necessity for a 24‑hour caregiver and consumable equipment may assist the judge.
3 Apr 2008

WAN CHUEN HOI v. WING SHUN ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION LTD

Citation

WAN CHUEN HOI v. WING SHUN ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1059/2007

Because the respondent defaulted and service was proved, the court accepted Dr Lam's unchallenged medical opinion that claimant's combined loss of earning capacity is 8.5%; using the respondent's tax return to calculate average monthly earnings, the court applied the statutory multiplier and calculated statutory awards under sections 9, 10 and 10A, resulting in an award of HK$203,288.07 with interest and costs.
30 Jun 2005

ARFAN MUHAMMAD v. MPS ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

ARFAN MUHAMMAD v. MPS ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI457/2003

The psychiatrist's report was admissible because a psychiatrist's specialist opinion was necessary to diagnose and quantify psychiatric injury arising from the head trauma, the report was relevant to claims for psychiatric treatment costs and mitigation, and it satisfied the necessity, relevance and probative value test; the solicitor's prior obtaining of the report did not by itself warrant exclusion.
3 Jun 1988

THE QUEEN v. TANG KWONG WING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TANG KWONG WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA241/1988

Because the appellant was in the driver's seat with the engine running and remained in control of the vehicle during the brief interval after stopping, he was 'driving' when the car moved; absence of intention to continue the journey and uncertainty as to how the movement occurred were immaterial to liability for careless driving, and the magistrate's finding of guilt was correct.
25 Mar 1986

THE QUEEN v. LAM MAN HUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAM MAN HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA243/1986

The conviction was unsafe because the magistrate relied in part on inadmissible evidence (the unconfirmed vehicle examiner's report) and the evidence admitted permitted a credible non-negligent explanation (skidding on a wet road); where an admissible evidentiary basis for negligence is lacking the conviction must be set aside.