Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to adduce expert evidence

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2025

KWOK CARMAN v. CHENG SAI WAH

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1719
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2381/2022

A prima facie case of recognised psychiatric illness manifesting immediately after the accident was established on contemporaneous medical records; independent psychiatric expert evidence is therefore relevant, necessary and of probative value to assist the trial judge on causation, severity, prognosis and quantum; delay and alleged prejudice do not outweigh the plaintiff's substantive right to adduce such evidence, so leave is granted and the Master's decision set aside.
4 Sept 2025

CHINA ENERGY DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS LTD v. YEUNG KA SING, CARSON

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4323
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA784/2021

Blanket advance permission to substitute the plaintiff's expert up to shortly before trial is refused because it would unfairly prejudice the defendant's ability to prepare cross-examination and the plaintiff was given leave to adduce evidence from one, not two, experts; the identity of that expert must be known and any substitution application must be considered on the circumstances prevailing at the time of application.
9 Jun 2025

LEE CHARLES GOON LOK v. LEE KWOK CHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2444
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2366/2015

The court refused the proposed self-dealing/fair-dealing and undervaluation amendments and dismissed the valuation evidence summons because the amendments were inordinately late without satisfactory explanation, their admission would cause prejudice and unduly enlarge the scope of the already fixed trial, and the market valuation evidence was not sufficiently relevant to the pleaded causes of action. Unopposed amendments were allowed. Costs orders were made against the Plaintiff and jointly and severally against Plaintiff and D3 for the valuation summons.
6 Jun 2025

KWOK CARMAN v. CHENG SAI WAH

Citation

[2025] HKDC 943
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2381/2022

The summons for leave to adduce psychiatric expert evidence is dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie causal link between the Accident and the asserted psychiatric injury in light of pre‑existing psychiatric history and prolonged, unexplained default in treatment; alternatively, even if a prima facie case existed the application would be refused as late, prejudicial, and disproportionate to the claim.
24 Apr 2024

LAW ON TONG v. THE CHINA ENGINEERS, LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 651
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI927/2022

Leave to adduce a supplemental joint neurosurgical expert report was refused because the joint experts had considered the available MRI reports and gave an unequivocal, unambiguous opinion that no pre-existing condition contributed to the accident or impairments; the defendant failed to show necessity or ambiguity in that opinion, the application was late and would cause undue delay and prejudice, and therefore the appeal was dismissed with costs.
19 Feb 2024

YUAN REXIANG v. LAU CHUN YING, the proving executrix of the estate of LAU FOO KIM, deceased AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 494
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP2/2021

The appeal is allowed and the Master's order permitting psychiatric expert evidence is set aside because the proposed expert could only offer speculative opinion based on circumstantial records; contemporaneous medical notes provided by the parties allow the court to reach its own conclusions and draw necessary inferences on testamentary capacity without expert assistance; there was no contemporaneous medical evidence of impaired mental state and the proposed evidence lacked probative value and necessity.
20 Mar 2023

CHAN PAK YUEN v. LAM MAN KIT

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 818
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI199/2021

The court affirmed the master's decision: treating-doctor reports may include admissible facts (history, diagnosis, treatment) but any portions that express opinion serving as expert evidence require prior leave; the reports before the master contained opinion material amounting to expert evidence and were properly expunged; legal representatives must exercise judgment to redact or obtain leave for opinion material.
20 Mar 2023

WONG WAH TUNG v. CHAN WAH DESIGN DECORATION LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 392
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ637/2021

The Scott Schedule as filed contained many factual items and did not present accurately and neutrally framed questions for expert opinion; allowing expert evidence to be based on that Schedule would risk experts giving opinion on factual matters and causing confusion, therefore the Master’s order granting leave to adduce expert evidence on the basis of the Scott Schedule was set aside and the plaintiff's summons dismissed (while not precluding expert evidence generally if properly framed).
1 Feb 2023

CHEUNG YUK HA v. CHOI WAN ST. JOSEPH’S PRIMARY SCHOOL AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 313
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI377/2019

Leave to adduce the clinical psychologist's report was properly refused because the report was not shown to be relevant or reasonably necessary to resolve the pleaded issues, its probative value was undermined by lack of direct assessment and incomplete information, it raised unpleaded issues (including reliance on the Guide and Support Model and possible ASD diagnosis), and the disputed questions were predominantly factual or required expertise in other disciplines; therefore the master was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
14 Nov 2022

CHENG SIU MING v. CHAN YUNG MAN

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1332
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI3551/2020

Leave to adduce dermatological expert evidence was refused because causation of the plaintiff's alopecia areata, as alleged, depends on psychiatric assessment; the treating dermatologist's causation opinion was a bald temporal assertion without investigation of psychosocial background and therefore insufficient to justify dermatological expert evidence; a dermatologist could not properly attribute the alleged stress to the accident without psychiatric evidence; obtaining dermatological expert evidence would be disproportionate to the quantum claimed and contrary to cost‑effective disposal req…