KWOK CHI KUEN v. LEE CHUNG LICK

HCPI 1058/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 1058 OF 2005

----------------------

----------------------

----------------------

D E C I S I O N

----------------------

1.  The case has been referred to me in Pre-trial Review on the calling of oral expert evidence. 

2.  The Plaintiff went to see the Defendant dentist and it is admitted that the Defendant was negligent in the cosmetic crown-bridging work done to the Plaintiff.  The case is for assessment of damages. 

3.  The Defendant did not contest the original work done by him was negligent in causing damage.  What he objected to is that the Plaintiff has gone off to see dentists in general practice rather than a specialist in Prosthodontics in remedial treatment as he has eventually done so in 2007. 

4.  The Defendant said he is only liable for the proper costs of treatment the Plaintiff is receiving now excluding the inappropriate work done by the other dentists before seeing the current specialist.

5.  Mr Ng, for the Defendant, submitted that the Defendant’s position as to the inappropriateness of the previous dental treatment as well as the increase in costs due to the intervening complications are actually reflected in the Plaintiff’s own expert report.  However, Mr Wong, for the Plaintiff, disagreed with such interpretation on the Plaintiff’s expert report. 

6.  There are only 2 factual witnesses but a lot of the time will be devoted to the numerous intervening dental treatments and I agree that the case requires 3 to 4 days. 

7.  As to the calling of the experts, I have given consideration that this is a medical negligence case in dentistry with the complications of the propriety of the subsequent treatment, and the subject is not met with the most familiarity.  I shall give leave to call the experts to give oral evidence at the trial. 

8.  I commend the parties to discuss on the expert reports to see whether any sensible resolution on the disagreement can be achieved, so that the experts need not be called or even the case be settled without trial. But as the parties cannot reach any settlement, I shall set the case down.

9.  I shall set the case down for 4 days in the fixture list.  There is no reason why the parties cannot continue to discuss settlement.

10.  The costs of today’s hearing shall be in the cause with Legal Aid taxation.