張嘉雯 v. THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION OF HONG KONG, CHINA LTD

DCEC 1536/2023

[2025] HKDC 1556

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION CASE NO 1536 OF 2023

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

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

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

DECISION

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

THE SUMMONSES

1.  There are before this Court 3 Summonses as follows:

(1)  Summons filed on 2 July 2025 by the Applicant (“A”) for leave to serve on the Respondent (“R”) interrogatories filed on 2 May 2025 (“Summons for Interrogatories”);

(2)  Summons filed on 7 July 2025 by A for leave to file her supplemental witness statement (“WS2”) in the form of the draft attached thereto (“Summons for WS2”); and

(3)  Summons filed on 11 July 2025 by R for leave to adduce medical evidence from a solo psychiatry expert (“SPE”) (“Summons for SPE”) upon A’s election not to obtain or adduce medical expert evidence nor jointly engage medical expert with R.

2.  The following affirmations were filed in respect of A’s Summons for Interrogatories:

(i)  A’s affirmation in support filed on 2 July 2025;

(ii)  R’s affirmation of Cheung Yim Yau in opposition filed on 11 July 2025; and

(iii)  A’s affirmation in reply filed on 17 July 2025.

3.  The following affirmations were filed in respect of A’s Summons for WS2:

(i)  A’s affirmation in support filed on 7 July 2025;

(ii)  R’s affirmation of Cheung Yim Yau in opposition filed on 22 July 2025; and

(iii)  A’s affirmation in reply filed on 31 July 2025.

4.  The following affirmations were filed in respect of R’s Summons for SPE:

(i)  R’s affirmation in support of Cheung Yim Yau filed on 11 July 2025; and

(ii)  A’s affirmation in opposition filed on 25 July 2025.

5.  I read the affirmations and skeleton submissions filed by the parties and heard the submissions and arguments in court of A acting in person and R’s counsel Mr Brian Chok.

BACKGROUND

6.  A was the former Human Resources Director in the employ of R. Her claim herein for employees’ compensation is premised upon psychiatric injuries suffered at work allegedly resulted from the conduct of and treatment of her by Mr Tam Chau Long, former Chief Executor Officer (“CEO Tam”) of R, as well as the extremely stressful working environment and workload.

7.  A’s case as pleaded in the Application and supported by her first witness statement filed on 17 April 2025 (spanning over 85 pages with attachments comprising 2 large folders) is that since November 2021 when working for R, the working environment had been stressful and her workload and pressure had become unmanageable and unreasonable. The controversial event concerns (i) a request by CEO Tam shortly before 1 pm on 9 February 2021 for A to prepare a meeting report by 2 pm of the morning meeting that had just finished by 1 pm; and (ii) the subsequent email sent by CEO Tam to A that afternoon, circulated to other management staff, criticizing her. The event resulted in intense chest pain, headache and anxiety suffered by A (“Accident”). She first sought treatment at St Paul’s Hospital on 13 February 2022, and was referred to consult a psychiatrist which she did on the following day on 14 February 2022. She was diagnosed to suffer from “adjustment disorder” allegedly due to work stress.

8.  A claims in this action against R employees compensation in respect of the injuries allegedly sustained by her as a result of the Accident under the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance, Cap 282.

9.  For the purposes of her claim herein, A was assessed by the Employees’ Compensation Medical Assessment Board (“MAB”) on 29 May 2024. As set out in the Certificate of Assessment (Form 7) issued on 12 June 2024, her work injury relates to mood disorder originated from incidents at work (工作事件引致情緒困擾). Permanent loss of earning capacity (“LEC”) caused by the Accident was assessed at 0%.

10.  The assessment of 0% LEC was maintained upon review by the MAB as set out in the Certificate of Review of Assessment (Form 9) issued on 27 November 2024. A was granted sick leaves intermittently from 14 February 2022 up to 13 November 2024, over a period of more than 2.5 years.

11.  Other than the Accident, there were subsequent to the Accident other incidents referred to by A in the Application and in her first witness statement. Such incidents A claims were also accidents which had aggravated her mental stress and condition (“Other Incidents”) as follows:

21 March 2022:

Exchange of emails between A, CEO Tam and other staff in which A felt being critcised;

30 May 2022:

A was denied access to her office room at work nor use of the photocopying machine, and she was not even allowed to retrieve her personal belongings; and

15 August 2022:

Termination by R of A’s employment (which A argues to be unlawful termination) without reasons.

12.  Evidence shows that A has since February 2022 attended numerous psychiatric consultations and clinical psychological services sessions, and had sought psychiatric treatment in both the public and private sectors. The medical reports record diagnoses and clinical impression of adjustment disorder/depressive symptoms/depressive episode.

A’S SUMMONS FOR WS2

13.  A’s case is that she took out the Summons for WS2 containing references to the Other Incidents in order to “perfect” (完善) the contents of the Application.

14.  R opposes the Summons for WS2 and argues that the issues and the scope of witness statements are defined by the pleadings, and not the other way round, referring to Kwok Chin Wing v 21 Holdings Ltd (2013) 16 HKCFAR 663, at §21 – This is trite legal principle.

15.  A’s Summons for WS2, with the admitted intention of “perfecting/amending” the Application, is clearly misconceived and should be dismissed. In any event, she has, as she acknowledged when pointed out by this Court, already made full references to and provided exemplary details of the Other Incidents in her first witness statement in respect of: the alleged 21 March 2022 incident (§§158-159), the 30 May 2022 incident (§§210-229) and the 15 August 2022 incident (§§261-276).

16.  A confirmed during the hearing that she would not pursue, but agreed to withdraw, the Summons for WS2.

R’S SUMMONS FOR SPE

17.  R argues as set out in its counsel’s skeleton submissions that medical expert evidence from an SPE will assist the court in resolving the following medical issues in this case:

(1)  Assessment of A’s mental condition and causation by the Accident, and whether the sick leaves granted to A were necessary and solely attributable to the Accident;

(2)  Assessment of loss of earning capacity caused by the Accident and the reasonable length of sick leave, against the evidence that A had continued to work after the Accident until termination of her employment on 15 August 2022; and

(3)  The impact, if any, of A’s meningioma diagnosed in March 2022 on her psychiatric condition.

18.  A’s main contention is that the evidence of the numerous medical records and reports from her treating doctors clearly supports her psychiatric injuries which manifested immediately after the Accident, and has sufficiently established causation by the Accident and the Other Incidents.

19.  This cannot be right. The primary concern of treating doctors was about taking information from the patients, making diagnoses and prescribing and delivering treatments. The clinical records and reports of treating doctors, commissioned based on a doctor-patient trust relationship, are always admissible to prove the injuries, diagnoses, treatments, development and recovery. However, any opinion contained in treating doctors’ reports, often made without critical and objective assessment but based on the patient’s report of symptoms or complaints, is not admissible unless leave is obtained from the court. It is inappropriate to turn treating doctors into experts. See Hung Sau Fung v Lai Ping Wai [2012] 1 HKLRD 1 at §46 and Wong Cheuk v Falcon Insurance Co (Hong Kong) Ltd (unrep, DCEC 688/2008, 20 May 2009) at §§44-46.

20.  A conceded in the course of the hearing to R’s Summons for SPE and agreed to submit to an SPE examination proposed by R.

21.  Even if A had not made the concession, I would have been inclined to grant R’s application for adducing expert evidence from an SPE as such evidence would be relevant, necessary and of probative value, and will assist the court in resolving the medical issues arising, in accordance with the trite legal principles stated in the decision of Bharwaney J in Fung Chun Man v Hospital Authority and Another (unrep, HCPI 1113/2006, 24 June 2011), at §§9-16, referred to by R’s counsel.

22.  I therefore grant leave for R to adduce medical expert evidence from SPE Dr Chung See Yuen as proposed by R.

A’S SUMMONS FOR INTERROGATORIES

23.  A by the Summons for Interrogatories sets out 32 extensive questions (spanning over 21 pages), most of which are questions arising from the following 2 witness statements adduced by R:

(1)  Witness statement of CEO Tam filed on 17 April 2025; and

(2)  Witness statement of Ng Tsz Kin, Human Resources Manager of R (“HR Ng”), filed on 17 April 2025.

24.  R argues that most of the questions contained in the interrogatories are irrelevant to the issues in disputes, aiming to challenge the credibility of and cross-examine R’s witnesses CEO Tam and HR Ng on their witness statements, amounting to a fishing expedition and are not necessary for disposing of the matter fairly or for saving costs.

25.  Nevertheless R has, “solely for the purpose of saving costs of further argument” as stated in its solicitors’ letter dated 30 May 2025, agreed to answer Q4(ii), Q5(ii) and (vi), Q7(ii) and (iii), Q20(i) and Q24(i) of the interrogatories by affirmation. R opposes the rest of the questions contained in the interrogatories.

Legal Principles on Interrogatories

26.  The jurisdiction for the court to order interrogatories is provided under O 26 r1(1)-(3) of the Rules of the District Court (“RDC”):

“(1) A party to any cause or matter may apply to the Court for an order–

(a) giving him leave to serve on any other party interrogatories relating to any matter in question between the applicant and that other party in the cause or matter; and

(b) requiring that other party to answer the interrogatories on affidavit within such period as may be specified in the order.

…

(2A) On the hearing of an application under this rule, the Court shall give leave as to such only of the interrogatories as it considers necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs; and in deciding whether to give leave the Court shall take into account any offer made by the party to be interrogated to give particulars, make admissions or produce documents relating to any matter in question.

(3) A proposed interrogatory which does not relate to such a matter as is mentioned in paragraph (1) shall be disallowed notwithstanding that it might be admissible in oral cross-examination of a witness.”

27.  As submitted by R’s counsel, interrogatories falling into the following categories should not be allowed: (Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2025, at commentary 26/4/6-13)

(1)  matters relate solely to credit;

(2)  when the interrogating party “disbelieves” the other party to the action and seeks to compel the party called upon to answer the same to agree to the former’s case;

(3)  matters which bear no relevance to the pleaded issues;

(4)  fishing interrogatories e.g. to solely elicit information that goes to the opponent’s case and not the interrogating party’s own case which is not sufficiently pleaded, or to ascertain the names and identities of potential witnesses for the opponent;

(5)  of matters already stated in the pleadings, medical reports, discoverable documents or witness statements;

(6)  to obtain an admission of a fact which will be proved at trial;

(7)  of matters which are plain that no admission can be obtained;

(8)  to obtain an admission of a fact the truth of which is a matter of opinion;

(9)  matters solely related to the evidence which the party interrogated intends to adduce;

(10)  when the interrogatories concern an admission of fact solely within the knowledge of the interrogating party;

(11)  oppressive interrogatories; and

(12)  interrogatories tantamount to cross-examination.

28.  It was held in Lee Nui Foon v Ocean Park Corp (No. 2) [1995] 2 HKC 395, at 395D and 396G, that even where relevance and admissibility are established, the court retains an overriding discretion as to whether or not to allow interrogatories to be administered.

29.  Upon the submissions of R’s counsel, A agreed to withdraw the following interrogatories (subject to those R has agreed to answer) in the course of the hearing:

  Q1, Q3, Q4, Q7(i), (iv), (x)-(xiii), Q8, Q9, Q10, Q12, Q13, Q14, Q15, Q16(i)-(vi) and (viii), Q17, Q18, Q19, Q22, Q23, Q27, Q32

30.  A’s pleaded case herein arose out of the alleged Accident to her at work on 9 February 2022; it is premised on the manner of communication with and treatment of her by CEO Tam in the course of work, resulting in the medical conditions of adjustment disorder or mood disorder, aggravated by Other Incidents which occurred in the following few months until termination of her employment on 15 August 2022.

31.  Bearing the relevant legal principles in mind, I now turn to the disputed interrogatories under Q2(i)-(vi), Q5(i), (iii)-(v), Q6(i) and (ii), Q7(v)-(ix), Q11 (i)-(iv), Q16(vii), Q21(i) and (ii), Q24(ii), Q25(i)-(iv), Q26(i)-(v), Q28(i) and (ii), Q29(i)-(iv), Q30, Q31(i)-(v) which A insists and R opposes to answer.

32.  I set out in the table below briefly the contents of the questions in dispute, against which my rulings with brief reasons:

Interrogatories	Contents/Court’s Ruling
2(i)-(vi)	These questions arise from CEO Tam’s evidence that A was employed by R as the HR Director who directly reported to him. (i), (ii), (iv) and (vi): Relate to matters of reporting channel. Whether A reported to CEO Tam only or also to other officers of R and/or members of the board is peripheral background information irrelevant to the issues in dispute. (iii) and (v): The comment by other officers on the work ability of CEO Tam and the incident of him being required to excuse himself from a board meeting bear no relevance to the issues in dispute.
Ruling:	Not allowed
5(i), (iii)-(v)	A by these questions asks the opinion of R on the manner in which CEO Tam had allegedly treated/communicated with A in the course of work – these are questions aiming to force an admission from R.
Ruling:	Not allowed
6(i)-(ii)	(i) Relates to the manner and method of communication with staff of the predecessors of CEO Tam – this is irrelevant to the issues in dispute. (ii) Concerns the opinion of R - aiming to force an admission from R.
Ruling:	Not allowed
7(v)-(ix)	(v): Matters regarding previous completed work assignments of A are within her own knowledge - inappropriate interrogatory. (vi): Relates to the opinion of R on the alleged management conduct of CEO Tam. (vii)-(ix): Matters concerning R’s appraisal and assessment system, if any, of its employees - irrelevant to the issues in dispute.
Ruling:	Not allowed
11(i)-(iv)	(i)-(iii): Matters relating to the conciliation meeting in early August 2022 arranged and assisted by the Labour Department - irrelevant to the issues in dispute. (iv): Alleged non-action of R despite the complaints of A who suffered emotional problems due to work – this is tantamount to forcing an admission of escaping liability from R on matters in dispute and will be proved at trial.
Ruling:	Not allowed
16(vii)	(vii): This is a hypothetical question intending to force an admission from R of alleged occurrences subsequent to the Accident including CEO Tam’s emails to and bullying of A, R’s non-action to A’s complaints and predicament, CEO Tam denying access of A to her room on 30 May 2022 and unlawful termination by R of A on 15 August 2022 - these are disputed facts which will be proved at trial.
Ruling:	Not allowed
21(i)-(ii)	Matters relating to renewal of A’s job title to “Human Resources Manager” back in 2013 and her job description/specification - irrelevant to the issues in dispute.
Ruling:	Not allowed
24(ii)	Question relating to entitlement to “acting allowance” of A and other employees of R - irrelevant to the issues in dispute.
Ruling:	Not allowed
25(i)-(iv)	(i), (iv): Job description/specification of HR Ng in comparison with that of A is irrelevant to the issues in dispute. (ii), (iii): A’s challenge of HR Ng’s evidence contained in his witness statement whether such was “based on his personal knowledge” or “from R’s records” - such distinction is unnecessary when HR Ng’s evidence is given in his work capacity and his witness statement was adduced for and on behalf of R; otherwise tantamount to cross-examination or relates solely to credit
Ruling:	Not allowed
26(i)-(v)	(i): Meaning of the “supervising role” of A. (ii), (iii), (v): Size of the HR team staff and their work experience, academic qualifications and years of service with R. (iv): Matters relating to personnel changes, % loss of staff and increase of workload within the HR team during the period from 2021 to 15 August 2022 (termination of employment of A). These matters are irrelevant to the issues in dispute.
Ruling:	Not allowed
28(i)-(ii)	(i): Forcing an admission from R regarding termination of A’s employment upon R’s knowledge of A suffering medical conditions due to work – these are facts disputed by R and will be proved at trial. (ii): Request for discovery of board meetings records and recordings relating to termination of A’s employment - inappropriate interrogatory.
Ruling:	Not allowed
29(i)-(iv)	A refers to the incidents stated in her first witness statement (§§4-5 on page 6) regarding (i) denial of her access by R to the company server and her office room and use of the photocopying machine; and (ii) request for A to take (forced) leave/ not return to work during the period from 30 May to 14 August 2022, and serves these interrogatories on whether there have been other similar occurrences during 2011 to 2020, whether such were usual occurrences, and the system and policy, if any, implemented by R to tackle them and whether such system and policy are set out in R’s employees’ handbook. These matters are irrelevant to the issues in dispute (which concern the conduct of and manner in which A was allegedly treated by CEO Tam, allegedly resulting in injuries of A).
Ruling:	Not allowed
30	A by this question has misquoted CEO Tam (§11 of his witness statement): He did not say that A “… had worked as usual (如常工作) on 9 and 10 February 2022” but that A “reported (to him via email on 11 Feb 2022) … (that she was) unwell since 6 Feb 2022 … too sick to work … but still worked from 7 to 10 Feb 2022 in office except 9 Feb 2022 when she worked from home…” A’s questions regarding her work assignments and completed work during 9 and 10 Feb 2022 relate to matters within her own knowledge, and tantamount to cross-examination. The request for discovery of documentary proof of emails and WhatsApp records is not appropriate.
Ruling:	Not allowed
31(i)-(v)	(i)-(iv): Questions regarding “forced leave” (強制不能復工) ie A was not allowed to resume work during 30 May to 14 August 2022 by R, the reasons for the same, why full pay was made to A despite no sick leave certificate was submitted, and whether R had any set policy/system regarding “forced leave” and whether stated in R’s employees’ handbook – these matters are relevant to the Other Incidents which in A’s case have aggravated her mental conditions of “adjustment disorder/ mood disorder”.
Ruling:	Allowed
Ruling:	(v): Whether A could carry out her duties as the HR Director during “forced leave” – irrelevant to the issues in dispute or within A’s own knowledge. Not allowed

33.  To conclude, A by the Summons for Interrogatories requests R to answer 32 extensive questions, of which R has agreed to answer Q4(ii), Q5(ii) and (vi), Q7(ii) and (iii), Q20(i) and Q24(i).

34.  A during the hearing conceded to withdraw a substantial part of the interrogatories.

35.  Of the remaining 14 disputed questions (in part or whole) A insists upon and R opposes to answer, which require this Court’s ruling, only Q31(i)-(iv) is allowed.

COSTS

Summons for WS2 / Summons for SPE

36.  Upon A’s withdrawal of the Summons for WS2 and concession on R’s Summons for SPE at the hearing, I heard the parties’ submissions on costs of those Summonses.

37.  There is no reason why costs should not follow the event. The fact that A is acting in person per se, as submitted by A, would not justify departure from the usual costs order. A is reminded to assess carefully relevance of the voluminous evidence and documents and bear in mind the serious risks of costs consequences in the conduct of her claim.

38.  In respect of the costs of the Summons for WS2, after hearing parties’ submissions, I made an order that R should have costs, payable by A. I consider it appropriate to deal with the matter by way of summary assessment in accordance with O 62 r 9A(1)(a) of the RDC. For those purposes, I gave directions at the hearing for A to submit, within 7 days from the date of the hearing, a List of Objections to R’s Statement of Costs lodged on 14 August 2025 in respect of the Summons for WS2.

39.  In respect of the costs of R’s Summons for SPE, I grant costs to R, payable by A, in respect of (i) A’s affirmation in opposition; (ii) R’s skeleton submissions; and (iii) 1/3 of the costs of the hearing (with certificate for counsel), to be taxed if not agreed, whilst the costs of the Summons for SPE (together with R’s affirmation in support) be in the cause.

Summons for Interrogatories

40.  R submitted a Statement of Costs dated 14 August 2025 in respect of the Summons for Interrogatories at the hearing.

41.  I gave directions to A to submit, within 7 days from the date of the hearing, her Statement of Costs in respect of the Summons for Interrogatories pending my decision herein. I consider it appropriate also to deal with such costs by way of summary assessment.

42.  I have further considered A’s written submissions on costs filed on 21 August 2025 in respect of the Summons for Interrogatories, in which she seeks an order of costs in the cause.

43.  As shown in my decision above, most of the extensive interrogatories sought to be served under A’s Summons for Interrogatories have been ruled to be irrelevant to the issues in dispute in this action and not allowed in accordance with O 26 r1(1)-(3). R is the substantial winner of the Summons for Interrogatories. I exercise my discretion to grant 90% of the costs of the Summons (inclusive of the hearing) to R, payable by A.

ORDER

Summons for WS2

44.  Leave was granted at the hearing to A to withdraw the Summons filed on 7 July 2025.

45.  On costs, I have considered A’s List of Objections lodged on 21 August 2025. I order that costs of the summons be to R, payable by A, with certificate for counsel, summarily assessed at HK$48,000.

46.  I further make an order nisi that A do make payment to R of the assessed costs of HK$48,000 within 28 days from the date of this order. In the absence of any party seeking to vary the payment deadline by way of application by letter within 14 days from the date of this order, this order shall become absolute.

Summons for SPE

47.  In respect of R’s Summons for SPE, upon A’s concession made at the hearing for R to adduce SPE evidence and submit to the proposed SPE examination, and having heard the parties’ submissions on costs, I made the following order at the conclusion of the hearing:

(1)  Leave be granted to R to adduce medical expert evidence from SPE Dr Chung See Yuen;

(2)  Costs of R’s Summons (together with the affirmation in support) be in the cause; and

(3)  Costs of (i) A’s affirmation in opposition; (ii) R’s skeleton submissions; and (iii) 1/3 of the costs of the hearing (with certificate for counsel), be to R, payable by A, to be taxed if not agreed.

48.  Consequential directions on SPE medical examination and commissioning of the SPE report were also given by this Court at the hearing.

Summons for Interrogatories

49.  In respect of A’s Summons for Interrogatories, I make the following order:

(1)  R do provide answers by way of an affirmation within 28 days from the date of this order interrogatories Q4(ii), Q5(ii) and (vi), Q7(ii) and (iii), Q20(i), Q24(i) (as agreed by R) and Q31(i)-(iv);

(2)  For the avoidance of doubt, apart from those questions of interrogatories set out in paragraph (1) hereinabove, leave is refused for A to serve on or request R to answer the rest of the interrogatories contained in A’s Summons filed on 2 July 2025;

On costs, I make the following order nisi:

(3)  A do pay R 90% of the costs of the Summons and 1/3 of the costs of the hearing (with certificate for counsel), to be summarily assessed by this Court, such costs assessed to be paid by A to R within 28 days from the date of the assessment; and

(4)  A do lodge and serve, if necessary, within 14 days from the date of this order, a List of Objections to R’s Statement of Costs dated 14 August 2025 and written submissions regarding the payment deadline (of 28 days). Summary assessment will be conducted by paper disposal after 14 days whether or not a List of Objections and written submissions are lodged.

50.  The above costs order in respect of the Summons for Interrogatories is nisi and shall become absolute in the absence of application by any party to vary the same by way of written submissions within 14 days from the date of this order. Upon an application for variation being made, the other party shall submit written submissions in reply within 14 days thereafter. Any application for variation of costs order nisi will be dealt with by paper disposal.