CHEUNG LIK HANG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

HCPI 20/2023

[2024] HKCFI 1089

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 20 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.  This is the pre-trial review (PTR) hearing of the case scheduled to be tried from 2 July 2024.

2.  The Joint PTR notice filed by the parties in early March 2024 reflects their consensus as to the readiness of the case for trial. Yet on 14 March 2024, the defendant took out the present summons seeking leave to adduce the witness statement of a new witness. Incidental to that is the discovery of the documents referred to in the statement. The statement is a completed draft pending signature.

3.  The plaintiff opposes the summons.

4.  The new witness is a Chief Inspector Jonathan Lau. His witness statement is just slightly more than 4 pages long. It covers (i) the plaintiff’s leave records and earnings between 2020 and 2021; (ii) the plaintiff’s allowances under the defendant’s scheme; and (iii) the plaintiff’s alleged loss of chance of promotion pertinent to the claim for post-trial loss of earnings. The incidental discovery of documents covers what are referred to in the statement.

5.  This new witness’ evidence largely aligns with what has always been pleaded in the defendant’s answer to the statement of damages. Only that by now, the defendant has not sought to adduce oral evidence, by way of witness statement, in respect of such part of its pleaded case. Now the new witness obviously serves to fill up the lacking evidence in respect of this part of the defendant’s case which has been known to the plaintiff for some time. Albeit late, allowing such application at this stage would not cause surprise in terms of contentions or substance of the evidence, but would be justifiable by the fair disposal of the issues in dispute known to the parties. It would not cause irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff.

6.  The plaintiff has the burden of proof of his contentions in this respect. He should be afforded with the opportunity to respond to the new evidence in this respect. The potential of that derailing the scheduled trial is not substantial.

7.  Hence, an order in terms of the defendant’s summons. There will be leave to the plaintiff to file and serve further witness statement solely in response to the evidence contained in the above new witness statement of the defendant within 21 days thereafter. Costs shall be taxed if not agreed with certificate for counsel.

8.  The following order is also made:

(1)  Case is adjourned to 2 July 2024 for trial as scheduled;

(2)  Trial bundle shall be lodged and served not less than 21 days before the trial together with its electronic version compiled in accordance with the format and specifications published by the Judiciary;

(3)  The plaintiff do lodge and serve written opening submissions and list of authorities not less than 14 days before the trial;

(4)  The defendant do lodge and serve written opening submissions and list of authorities not less than 7 days before the trial;

(5)  Written submissions shall be lodged together with their electronic versions;

(6)  The parties do attend on-site test use of the electronic device in court prior to the trial as the clerk of this court shall appoint; counsel attendance is not mandatory;

(7)  Save as ordered above, costs of the PTR hearing be in cause with certificate for counsel.