Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Expert evidence disclosure

Legal area

Court

31 Aug 2016

CHEUNG FAT ENTERPRISES LTD v. HARVEST TREASURE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHEUNG FAT ENTERPRISES LTD v. HARVEST TREASURE LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV37/2016

Leave to appeal was unlikely to succeed on the contention that non-disclosure of pending disciplinary proceedings rendered expert evidence inadmissible; the Lands Tribunal properly admitted and weighed the expert evidence under s10(6) and the Court of Appeal correctly upheld those conclusions; a stay would cause disproportionate and irrecoverable loss to other parties, so stay must be refused with costs.
22 Aug 2016

HARVEST TREASURE LTD AND OTHERS v. CEUNG FAT ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

HARVEST TREASURE LTD AND OTHERS v. CEUNG FAT ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV67/2016

Leave to appeal was refused and the stay application dismissed because the questions relied upon did not raise a reasonably arguable or novel point of general or public importance: there is no authority for a broad duty requiring experts in civil cases to voluntarily disclose pending disciplinary proceedings, and there is no general power to expunge already admitted expert evidence on that ground outside case management; challenges to weight should be made by cross‑examination where evidence has been admitted.
13 May 2015

文成有限公司對邢舜及另二人

Citation

文成有限公司對邢舜及另二人
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ691/2013

The court accepted the plaintiff's witness and expert evidence that B2 was the source of the leaking, found the first defendant (as registered owner during the relevant period) failed to take reasonable remedial measures and thereby was liable in negligence and nuisance and in breach of the estate's mutual covenant; defendant's expert evidence was excluded for failure to follow court directions; damages were assessed at HKD 554,500 plus interest and costs.
17 Jul 2013

WADDINGTON LTD v. CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS AND OTHERS

Citation

WADDINGTON LTD v. CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1454/2013

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge had correctly exercised his discretion: the 1st Defendant's request for the expert report was reasonable, the plaintiff should have supplied the report earlier under the aims of Order 1A, the hearing would probably have been avoided, and the costs orders made by the judge were therefore justified and without error of principle.
23 Mar 1999

EMPIRE TREND ENTERPRISES LTD. v. DOUBLE MIND CO. LTD.

Citation

EMPIRE TREND ENTERPRISES LTD. v. DOUBLE MIND CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2425/1998

The court refused the defendant's application to continue the proceedings as if begun by Writ because the additional delay and cost would be prejudicial and everything necessary can be achieved under the Originating Summons procedure; the court gave detailed directions (affidavits to stand as evidence, cross-examination of named deponents at hearing, expert disclosure within 42 days and limits on number of experts) and ordered security for costs of HKD 2.2 million with a staged payment schedule and allocated costs of the interlocutory hearings.
31 Jul 1995

KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V.

Citation

KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA477/1991

The court ordered disclosure of expert reports on United States law (CFR Title 16 and ASTM F963-86) under Order 38 r.36 but declined, because of interlocutory issue estoppel from a prior judge's refusal, to order that reports be agreed or to limit the number of expert witnesses; the plaintiff is entitled to prepare expert evidence on foreign standards and the defendant must pay costs of the hearing (orders nisi).
5 Feb 1988

HERMAN ISKANDAR v. BONARDY LEO AND OTHERS

Citation

HERMAN ISKANDAR v. BONARDY LEO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV117/1987

The Court held the trial judge acted within his discretion: a handwriting expert's disclosed report must state the substance of the evidence (reasons and salient differences) under R.S.C. Order 38 r.38(1); the defendant's report was inadequate and leave was required to adduce further oral particulars; exclusion of the Kromacote evidence and limitation of oral evidence was justified to prevent unfair surprise and prejudice and would have required adjournment; the attesting witnesses' credible testimony and prior proceedings supported probate so no miscarriage of justice warranted interference—…

Hong Kong Case Law

CHEUNG FAT ENTERPRISES LTD v. HARVEST TREASURE LTD AND OTHERS

HARVEST TREASURE LTD AND OTHERS v. CEUNG FAT ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS

文成有限公司 對 邢舜及另二人

WADDINGTON LTD v. CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS AND OTHERS

EMPIRE TREND ENTERPRISES LTD. v. DOUBLE MIND CO. LTD.

KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V.

HERMAN ISKANDAR v. BONARDY LEO AND OTHERS

文成有限公司對邢舜及另二人