MOHAMMAD SHAFIQ v. NAIN HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

HCPI 764/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 764 OF 2007

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

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

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

D E C I S I O N

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

1.  The issue at the Pre-trial Review is to decide on whether the 2 medical experts are to be called to give oral evidence, and the estimate of the length of trial. 

2.  The plaintiff sustained an injury from a fall at the construction site.  He is complaining of lower back pain.

3.  The defendant alleged that the plaintiff was never assigned to do the alleged work at all, and there was no reason for the plaintiff to climb up to the position where he allegedly had a fall.

4.  The plaintiff is going to call himself, and the defendant has 2 witnesses.

5.  The 2 medical experts differ as to the nature of the annular tears of the spine as shown on the MRI.  Professor Kumta, for the plaintiff,  said the annular tear was significant and caused by the accident, whereas Dr Lam Kwong Chin, for the defendant, said the annular tear was not significant at all. 

6.  The Master has asked the parties to prepare lists of issues on the medical evidence to justify the calling of oral expert evidence.  Mr Burke, for the plaintiff, has produced a table of summary of nearly repeating the body of the expert evidence, and that is not really necessary.  The costs of preparation of such document outweighed the benefit of the issue it is meant to deal with, i.e. the extent of the disagreement of the expert evidence with the view that the judge shall decide whether such differences can be resolved without calling doctors.  Framing of issues is to be succinct, otherwise they are not framed at all.  I hope that in future the issues can be succinctly set out without the reproduction of the medical reports in tabular form. 

7.  As to the time estimate, the defendant is going to challenge that it did assign the job to the plaintiff, and the accident did happen.  Due time should be allowed for cross-examination, taking into account the plaintiff is not an English speaker and interpretation is needed.  I agree with the 5 days as suggested by parties.

8.  The case is to be set down for 5 days in the Fixture List and the doctors are to be called.

9.  Today's costs shall be in the cause with Legal Aid taxation.

10.   As to the preparation of the lists of issues by the parties, they are more than necessary and I only allow the costs of $1,000 for such preparation, as an indication to the Master when taxation is to take place.