|
HCPI 913/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 913 OF 2007
----------------------
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
NG CHUN YU KATHY |
Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
WONG KOON KEUNG |
1st Defendant |
| |
WONG YUN LUNG |
2nd Defendant |
----------------------
Before: Hon Fung J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 3 July 2009
Date of Decision: 3 July 2009
Date of Reasons for Decision: 7 July 2009
--------------------------------------
REASONS FOR DECISION
--------------------------------------
1. The case was referred for Pre-trial Review earlier than usual for the determination of adducing expert advice on liability.
2. I disallowed the proposed evidence and gave directions as if under Checklist Review.
3. The Plaintiff was a front passenger on board a van driven by her friend the 2nd Defendant. The van had 2 collisions on a rural pathway in Luk Keng in the small hours of 7 October 2006.
4. First, the van swerved left and hit a tree, apparently to avoid a dog. Then, it was hit from behind by a car driven by the 1st Defendant.
5. Back in October 2007, the Plaintiff sued the 1st Defendant only, relying on his conviction of careless driving.
6. Then in December 2008, the Plaintiff joined the 2nd Defendant, alleging reckless driving in the particulars of negligence.
7. There are contribution proceedings between the Defendants.
8. The Plaintiff suffered a fractured leg (right tibia), and multiple scars on the forehead, legs and foot dorsum.
9. The respective orthopaedic experts are Dr James Kong, for the Plaintiff, Dr Patrick Wong, for the 1st Defendant, and Dr Lau Hoi-Kuen for the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff had recovered physically from the fracture, and could return to employment at large. However, her scars, especially on the forehead, may affect her pre-accident job as a beautician. As far as the orthopaedic evidence is concerned, the parties agreed that the tri-partite joint report is to be admitted without oral evidence.
10. The Master referred the case for PTR because Dr Kong tried also to give an opinion in the joint report with Dr Wong that the injuries were more likely caused by the second collision involving the 1st Defendant. Dr Kong based his opinion on the “scientific approach” of physics and dynamics and injuries received. Dr Wong claimed no similar expertise and offered some common sense observations. Dr Kong slighted the common sense approach. He rendered a single supplemental report on the subject.
11. Mr Chan, for the 1st Defendant, objected to Dr Kong’s supernumerary opinion, and requested the relevant parts be redacted: first, there is no leave for expert evidence on liability, secondly, there is no need for any.
12. I agree with Mr Chan. There are ample evidence for the resolution of liability without expert evidence on liability:
(1) the Plaintiff pleaded careless driving against the 1st Defendant, but reckless driving against the 2nd Defendant, and Dr Kong’s purported opinion is contrary to the tenor of the Plaintiff’s case;
(2) the relative damages to the respective vehicles upon impact are self-evident;
(3) the Plaintiff told the police that her leg was injured after the van hit the tree and she did not feel any second collision.
13. Hence, I ordered that the offending parts of Dr Kong’s opinion (paras. 80 to 96) be redacted. To be fair, I add that Dr Wong’s corresponding comments in response should also be redacted.
14. The Plaintiff’s claim also touched on cosmetic treatment. She obtained a report from Dr Or, plastic surgeon, recommending laser treatment, which may improve on but not remove the scars. All parties indicated that they are not considering any evidence on cosmetic surgery to remove the scars. The Defendants are content not to put in evidence on cosmetic treatment on their parts.
15. The Plaintiff also alleged psychiatric symptoms from the injuries and anxiety. All parties indicated that the medical reports of the treating psychiatrists are sufficient.
16. I also gave order for discovery of the treatment medical reports and the Plaintiff’s income from IRD and/or MPF and/or bank statements, and exchange of witness statements.
17. The 2nd Defendant has not yet filed an Answer to the Statement of Damages because the early reference by the Master. I revised their suggested timetable by directing counsels’ advice on liability and quantum be obtained by all parties after discovery is complete, and the Statement of Damages and Answer(s) be filed/revised after. Parties’ suggestion to obtain counsels’ advice only after revision of the pleadings is contrary to the provision for early advice by counsel in the new Practice Direction. That should pre-empt further round of amendments, and has actually saved over 1 month from the proposed timetable.
18. I ordered the case be set down in the Running List (3 days reserved) by 11 December 2009, not to be warned before 8 January 2010.
19. I ordered costs of the PTR be in the cause, save that costs of the supplemental report of Dr Kong be disallowed as it was obtained after the joint report and without leave.
20. I shall add that costs of the redacted part of Dr Kong’s report be disallowed as well. However, there is to be no disallowance of the costs of Dr Wong’s comments in the joint report as they were triggered by Dr Kong’s escapade.
| |
(B Fung) |
| |
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
| |
High Court |
Mr Lo Kam Ting, of Messrs Fong Chan & Lee, for the Plaintiff
Mr Daniel K K Chan, instructed by Messrs T S Tong & Co, for the 1st Defendant
Miss Wong Lok Yan Hedy, of Messrs Philip K H Wong, Kennedy Y H Wong & Co, for the 2nd Defendant
|