Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Malingering

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2024

CHAN SAU CHEUNG v. CHI WO CONTRACTORS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2146
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI3003/2020

The judge found the Plaintiff's account was contradicted by contemporaneous accident and medical records and surveillance evidence, that causation and liability were not established and that Plaintiff had already received greater employee's compensation than any liability assessed; accordingly the costs order nisi was properly varied to award party-party costs to 29 December 2023 and indemnity costs thereafter with enhanced interest at 5% above judgment rate, and the Plaintiff's applications for leave to appeal and stay were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
30 Oct 2020

YEUNG HO MAN v. SHUM KIN LEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2781
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI547/2017

Given the trial findings that the plaintiff was a consummate and egregious liar and a malingerer, the court exercised its discretion to order the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs from commencement on an indemnity basis and to award enhanced interest at 10% above the judgment rate on each payment of costs incurred after 8 April 2019; the Director of Legal Aid's mitigation arguments were rejected as insufficient to outweigh the plaintiff's egregious conduct.
28 Sept 2020

YEUNG HO MAN v. SHUM KIN LEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2531
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI547/2017

Liability for the collision was admitted; the court accepted documentary and expert evidence (notably joint neurology, psychiatry and ophthalmology reports) and found the plaintiff a malingerer due to numerous material inconsistencies between his accounts and the contemporaneous records and observed non-physiological findings. The only proven injury causally attributable to the accident was a facial contusion and a mild neck soft tissue injury. The court assessed PSLA at HK$100,000, minor pre-trial loss of earnings at HK$7,000 and special damages at HK$5,000, set those sums against employees’…
12 Oct 2018

SINGH BAL WINDER v. IWS WASTE MANAGEMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2242
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1126/2014

Although the plaintiff recovered marginally more than the defendant's sanctioned payments, the court exercised its residual discretion and reduced the plaintiff's costs to 50% because it found the plaintiff had engaged in malingering and maintained a vastly inflated claim which unnecessarily prolonged proceedings and increased costs; the defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the summons and the plaintiff's own costs to be taxed under Legal Aid regulations.
29 Dec 2017

ALE THAK PRASAD v. TSANG CHIN KEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

ALE THAK PRASAD v. TSANG CHIN KEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI579/2012

The court held the MMPI-2 neuropsychological test and report constitute expert evidence requiring leave because interpretation is expert-dependent, the test is not like an objective imaging or lab test, and there is no consensus that it is commonly practised in Hong Kong; on the facts the plaintiff failed to justify necessity, relevance and probative value and leave to adduce the report was refused.
25 Oct 2017

PAK SIU HIN SIMON v. J.V. FITNESS LTD

Citation

PAK SIU HIN SIMON v. J.V. FITNESS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI574/2014

Because the plaintiff failed to beat the employees' compensation sanctioned payment and the court made express findings that he exaggerated injuries and was malingering, the court exercised its discretion under Order 62 to vary the costs order nisi and award the defendant costs on an indemnity basis, including costs of the variation application.
31 Aug 2016

SHEHZAD MOHAMMAD v. TIM FUNG STEAM LAUNDRY (SHATIN) CO LTD

Citation

SHEHZAD MOHAMMAD v. TIM FUNG STEAM LAUNDRY (SHATIN) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI842/2014

The plaintiff was found not credible and to have willingly placed himself in a position of danger; there was no admissible evidence of machine malfunction and medical records and expert examination showed exaggeration/malingering; therefore the defendant owed no liability and the action is dismissed with indemnity costs to the defendant.
26 Nov 2010

HO MEI WAH v. BOON CHI SUN

Citation

HO MEI WAH v. BOON CHI SUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI394/2006

Leave was granted because the court lacked the psychiatric expertise to interpret discrepancies between the plaintiff's clinical presentation and behaviour on surveillance; the supplemental joint reports were relevant and of probative value, were likely to assist and potentially shorten the assessment hearing, and the delay in applying did not outweigh the benefit to the court.
13 Jul 2010

WAN CHEE LEUNG v. LAM KI MAU AND ANOTHER t/a TOMSON CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO

Citation

WAN CHEE LEUNG v. LAM KI MAU AND ANOTHER t/a TOMSON CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI95/2006

The Defendant is estopped from disputing that the Plaintiff was an employee, that he fell from height, and that he was cutting off steel bars in the course of employment at the time of the accident; the Defendant remains entitled to contest negligence, whether it had knowledge or instructed the Plaintiff regarding the task, and whether the Plaintiff is suffering from Frontal Lobe Syndrome or is malingering; costs of HKD 10,000 were awarded against the Defendant for the summons.
17 Mar 2010

CHAN KA YI v. DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

CHAN KA YI v. DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1631/2006

The court exercised its discretion to refuse a full trial of preliminary issues because such a trial would be duplicative, potentially unfair, and incapable of resolving all relevant evidence (notably orthopaedic evidence and fluctuating psychiatric condition); for the limited interlocutory purpose of authorising the solicitor and protecting legal aid, the court accepted Dr Leung's evidence and granted the next friend appointment while preserving the Respondent's right to challenge capacity at the main trial and reserving costs.