RYAN ALEXANDER SOH by his father and next friend, DAVID SOH AND OTHERS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PALM COURT AND ANOTHER

HCPI 359/2017

[2026] HKCFI 2622

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 359 OF 2017

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  Liability is not in issue in the present case. At the last checklist review hearing, the parties disagreed on the way forward, in particular whether and, if yes, how and when the further medical expert evidence should be obtained for the purpose of assessment of damages. As directed, this is now disposed of on paper upon receipt of the parties’ written representations.

BACKGROUND

2.  The background was set out in the decision of Hon Marlene Ng J dated 27 November 2020 ([2020] HKCFI 2980) which I do not propose to repeat except for the following.

3.  This was a fatal accident caused by a fallen tree on 14 August 2014.  The deceased pedestrian could not be saved while her baby at 38 weeks’ gestation was delivered by perimortem caesarean section.  The baby suffers from resultant impairment.

4.  In 2017, this action was commenced against the 1^st defendant (“the IO”) and the 2^nd defendant (“the Management Co”) by the deceased’s surviving husband.  He sues on behalf of the dependents of the deceased pursuant to the Fatal Accident Ordinance, Cap 22 and the estate of the deceased pursuant to the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance, Cap 23.  He also sues as the next friend of his saved baby son (“Ryan”).  Ryan is now an 11-year-old boy.  For the present purpose, the next friend is referred to as “the Father”.

5.  Interlocutory judgment on liability was entered on 22 September 2017, and that the case has since been case managed in respect of the issue of quantum.

6.  In respect of the disagreement between the two sides of the case on the necessary medical expert evidence for the purpose of the claim on behalf of Ryan, Hon Marlene Ng J handed down the decision mentioned above.  Pursuant to the leave of the court, the parties have since produced medical expert reports up to 2024, which will be referred to below.

7.  On 16 May 2025, the case came before this court for checklist review hearing and the hearing of the Father’s summons filed on 22 April 2025 for time extension.  Counsel for the Father gave the impression that further time and evidence would be necessary before the long term damage suffered by Ryan is crystallised for projecting the quantum.  Those acting for the defendants expressed reservation about such approach and the further delay.

8.  In view of their disagreement, and acknowledging the difficulty referred to, this court directed the Father to provide the following information to the defendants and this court so that a better picture of the roadmap may be projected:

(1)     the steps taken and being taken to ascertain the necessity for further expert evidence from the existing experts and expert evidence from experts in additional disciplines;

(2)     the basis for the necessity mentioned in (1) above;

(3)     the reasons for the time taken for the steps mentioned in (1) above;

(4)     the proposal for obtaining the further expert evidence and, if any, the expert from additional disciplines including but not limited to what aspects and what additional disciplines as well as their basis;

(5)     the proposal for the timetable for the purpose of (4) above; and

(6)     the proposal for the other outstanding and consequential directions in line with (4) and (5) above.

9.  This court also directed the defendants to set out in writing their respective observations, agreement and counter-proposals in respect of (4) to (6) of the preceding paragraph.  Further case management directions upon consideration of the parties’ written representations will be given on paper afterwards.

10.  The Father issued his letter dated 6 June 2025 pursuant to the above order of this court.

11.  The defendants provided their written responses by letters dated 7 August 2025 respectively.

12.  Pursuant to the order of this court dated 24 June 2025, and subsequent extension of time, the Father has also served his supplemental witness statement, a copy of which was enclosed by letter dated 2 September 2025 to this court expressly for the purpose of assisting this court in considering the further case management directions.

13.  The Father did not suggest any need to reply to the written responses of the defendants mentioned above.  Further, none of the parties propose to refer to or rely on any specific authorities which may assist this court in the consideration.  I therefore proceed with the discussion on this basis.

RYAN’S CONDITION BY 2024

14.  In the case of an infant victim of personal injuries, particularly one from birth, the uncertainty about whether his condition has become stable for reliable prognosis of his residual impairment and its impact on his life is understandable in view of his continuing growth and development in his tender years.  The degree of uncertainty varies from case to case.  In the present case, such uncertainty is somehow reflected by the manner in which the current statement of damages was crafted when Ryan was only 3 years old.  The uncertainty also marked the central message conveyed by counsel during the hearing before this court on 16 May 2025 when Ryan was 10 years old.

15.  For an account of the medical findings and diagnoses concerning Ryan by the age of 3, the decision of Hon Marlene Ng J mentioned above refers.  Suffice to say that the cerebral palsy suffered by Ryan caused him mild to moderate motor impairment as well as delayed development in locomotion, visual, hand, personal and social, hearing, language, speech and performance functions.

16.  According to the Father’s further witness statement, Ryan was in his Grade 3 at the age of 10 in 2024.  He gave an account of the continuing difficulties faced by Ryan by then, which may be summarised as follows for the present purpose:

(1)     oromotor dysfunction with continuing improvement;

(2)     language skills with improvement to the average range;

(3)     speech issues, including mild dysarthria, with continuing improvement;

(4)     self-care skills with some improvement in independence but challenges in co-ordination and sequencing;

(5)     motor skills fallen significantly behind peers;

(6)     academic performance with improvement including average cognitive abilities but continuing challenges in fine motor skills, attention and executive functioning;

(7)     social development hindered by communication challenges.

17.  The above observations would have to viewed against the medical and medical expert evidence.  So far, there are the following medical expert reports:

(1)     joint speech therapists’ report dated 27 January 2021;

(2)     joint occupational therapy evaluation report dated 15 September 2021;

(3)     joint paediatric neurologists’ report dated 15 September 2022;

(4)     joint paediatric neuropsychologists’ report dated 9 October 2022;

(5)     joint educational psychologists’ report dated 20 December 2022;

(6)     developmental behavioural paediatrician’s report dated 24 February 2024 (for the defendants); and

(7)     developmental behavioural paediatrician’s report dated 17 March 2024 (for Ryan).

18.  The joint speech therapy experts’ report, ie (1) above, came about after interview with Ryan when he was about 6.5 years old.  The report set out the experts’ assessment of Ryan’s speech and language insufficiency and significant chewing disorder as well as the necessary treatment and care.  The experts agreed that Ryan suffers from mild voice and speech impairment.  His language ability would depend on his cognitive progress.  However, prognosis was good.  Training is required to cope with his chewing disorder.

19.  The joint occupational therapy evaluation report, ie (2) above, came about after assessment sessions conducted by the experts when Ryan was a quarter short of 7 years old.  The report identified Ryan’s problems.  It recommended change of therapy regime, in view of his full-time schooling, and further rehabilitation therapy.  It set out the necessary level of care, case management need and its duration, technical aid and assistance to be prescribed as well as recommended transportation arrangement for him.  Ryan’s disabilities were believed to impact on his education and school life, but his future potential should be deferred to assessment by the educational psychologist.  The impact on his future employment was considered to be difficult to estimate at that stage, though the likely challenges would be related to his various difficulties faced now.  Insofar as this is within their expertise to say, the experts found nothing to add in respect of Ryan’s current and future needs.

20.  The joint paediatric neurologists’ report, the joint paediatric neuropsychologists’ report and the joint educational psychologists’ report, ie (3), (4) and (5) above, were obtained when Ryan was around 8 years old.

21.  On account of the cerebral palsy and brain damage suffered by Ryan, the paediatric neurologists detected no evident deterioration of his mobility, and there were signs of improvement.  The experts observed some problems in control, balance and co-ordination as well as jaw and tongue control and eye control of Ryan. Ryan’s intelligence was between low and average.  In terms of learning disabilities, Ryan was making progress academically.  His cognitive impairment was mild.

22.  Ryan’s cognitive, social, behaviour and communication aspects were deferred to the assessment by neuropsychologist and educational psychologist.  So were his need for education support.  Recommendations in respect of social care and other care needs to some extent overlap with the occupational therapist evaluation mentioned above.  His mental capacity was deferred to assessment by the psychologist.  No regular paediatric neurologist review would be needed.  Review by developmental paediatrician during his childhood, secondary and tertiary stages was recommended.

23.  The paediatric neuropsychologists expressed concern about the attention and executive functions of Ryan.  His sense of loss of his mother and her support created stress which called for therapy.  The consequence of that was too early to assess.  So was the impact on his emotion.  Neuropsychologist review, school assistance, assistance to the Father as well as speech and language therapist were recommended.

24.  The education psychologists confirmed the diagnosis of ADHD and special education needs of Ryan.  The needs and limitation of Ryan in terms of behaviour, academic and social emotional function were identified.  The support and need as well as cost of schooling were projected.  Recommendations were made to address his attention problem, social skills, home support such as tutoring, physiotherapy and helper were made.  Ryan was considered to be able to transit to and cope with the mainstream regular curriculum, and his cognitive and overall academic ability to be successful was preserved.  He was believed to be able to achieve at least the high school level.  One to one shadowing in education was recommended.  He would most likely manage sitting for public examination. Chance of even higher education would depend on his progress, which was too early to assess.  Assessment every 3 years was recommended.

25.  The most recent expert evidence was obtained from the developmental behavioural paediatricians instructed on behalf of the parties, ie (6) and (7) above.  The experts respectively examined Ryan when he was about 9 years old.

26.  The expert instructed on behalf of Ryan opined that despite Ryan’s overall average range of intellectual and academic abilities, he has significant neurodevelopmental difficulties which causes impairment.  The expert opined that as Ryan gets older, his ADHD symptoms may become more impairing, and trial of stimulant medication may be appropriate.  Hence the appropriateness of annual review to monitor his progress.  His ASD causes qualitative difficulties and impairments which may not become fully manifest until later, when social demands exceed his limited capacities, and when the difficulties become severe to cause impairment in various aspects of life and functioning.  Hence the need for full multi-disciplinary assessment in 2 years.  The expert recommended continuing occupational therapy to support his daily life skills.  As to the prognosis of Ryan’s educational, adaptive, cognitive, mental wellbeing and life expectancy as well as the independence skills support, the expert deferred to the other experts.

27.  The expert instructed on behalf of the defendants observed that Ryan has an age-appropriate cognitive function and learning abilities, but his limitations on physical difficulties, ADHD and social difficulties would likely persist.  He should manage remaining in the mainstream school setting, but it would be too early, as a matter of prognosis, to state the long-term consequences of his difficulties in view of his age and protracted nature of brain development, especially in respect of executive functions.

28.  The defendants’ expert set out in detail the recommended treatments and arrangements as well as their costing for Ryan at different stages of Ryan’s life.  Ongoing special educational support and arrangement in school were recommended.  However, special aids or equipment (including technology) other than those recommended by the joint occupational therapy evaluation report mentioned above were considered to be unnecessary.  Last, the expert recommended further medical and behavioural treatment on his ADHD, and social skill training on his social difficulties.  In these respect, one-to-one shadowing would not be too helpful.  The expert also recommended Ryan to be more active and less dependent in his daily life.  With suitable level of support and encouragement, Ryan is believed to be able to reach the full potential of his cognitive, academic and social abilities.

29.  Upon their subsequent meeting, the experts from the two sides agreed on their overall formulation with regard to Ryan’s neurodevelopmental difficulties mentioned above.

RYAN’S CURRENT CONDITIONS

30.  Ryan is now 11.5 years old.  According to the Father, Ryan is in his Grade 4 now.  In his further witness statement, the Father gave an account of Ryan’s current conditions, which may be summarised as follows for the present purpose:

(1)     oromotor dysfunction persisting, posing health concern and risk as well as social development challenges;

(2)     impaired language and speech profile and quality, affecting communication and social interactions;

(3)     significant challenges in independent self-care quality, and weak cognitive power to appreciate risk and danger;

(4)     lack of the strength and co-ordination for gross and fine motor skills, visual motor integration and body balance;

(5)     managing mainstream schooling with progress, but need to revert and maintain 1-one-1 learning support to cope with higher level learning in more advanced curriculum; academic and emotional struggles and frustrations;

(6)     significant difficulties in communication skills causing frustrations and disengagement in social development;

(7)     mental health concern due to low self-esteem, frustrations and ongoing grief;

(8)     visual complications impacting on learning, self-care, safety, mental health and enjoyment of life.

31.  The Father also listed out some 2 dozens of medical treatments which Ryan is receiving at different intervals as well as his concern about the side effects of Ryan’s prescribed medications.  He also mentioned the aids perceivably necessary to address the various disabilities of Ryan in the years to come until adulthood and old age.

PROPOSAL ON BEHALF OF RYAN

32.  Essentially, the following is proposed on behalf of Ryan:

(1)     obtaining up to date expert evidence from the experts of the various disciplines respectively mentioned above;

(2)     for the purpose of (1) above, the experts of each disciplines to carry out the respective joint examinations within 9 months after the issuance of joint instructions, and to produce their respective joint reports within 63 days after the joint examination;

(3)     obtaining expert evidence from assistive technology experts as to the tools, devices, software or equipment, and the cost thereof, which Ryan requires and will likely require in the future at various stages of his educational, social and home needs as a student and eventually as an adult in society;

(4)     revision of the statement of damages and further witness statement to bring the quantification of the claim up to date thereafter;

(5)     filing of the defendants’ respective answers to the revised statement of damages thereafter; and

(6)     reports of the doctors treating the orthopaedic and visual impairment of Ryan be accepted as evidence of his past, present and residual disabilities, but without prejudice to the liberty to apply for leave to adduce expert evidence in these respect in the event of disagreement of the defendants.

STANCE OF THE DEFENDANTS

33.  The IO opposes the proposal.

34.  Those acting for the IO refer to the school reports of Ryan as of the end of 2024 and the first quarter of 2025.  Amongst the 2 dozen of current treatments mentioned above, there are consultations with the occupational therapist, physiotherapist, speech and language therapist, feeding therapist as well as psychologist at SPOT, a child therapy centre in Hong Kong, on a weekly or bi-weekly basis.  Those acting for the IO refer to their progress summary reports as of the first quarter of 2025.

35.  Essentially, it is pointed out that Ryan is in fact improving with the school and medical assistance.  One may say that the observations made in those reports, which are cited, sound more positive than the tenor of the latest expressions of concerns by the Father mentioned above.

36.  Those acting for the IO also refer to the psychoeducational and autism spectrum assessment report of Ryan by the treating clinical psychologist in late 2023.  Evaluation by this specialist is supposed to be carried out every 2 years.  What those acting for the IO highlights is the comment of the specialist about 2 specific aspects. First, Ryan has clearly made excellent and steady progress across all domains of functioning, and he continues to flourish beyond expectations with determination and capability.  Second, there has been dramatic change in Ryan’s demeanour and the profound changes in his interpersonal style and willingness to engage in the assessment process, which the specialist took to indicate the time to seriously consider a balance in the level of individual support prescribed for Ryan to prevent therapeutic fatigue.

37.  It is submitted that obtaining further joint reports from the existing medical experts is costly in terms of time and cost, which, in view of the positive progress of Ryan according to the recent observations and assessments of the treating specialists mentioned above, would not be proportionate to the potential evidential value, particularly when the assessment would become out of date and obsolete in terms of evidential value once Ryan outgrows them.  The medical advice for therapeutic breaks for Ryan mentioned above refers.  For the treatments which would continue at regular intervals, progress reports would be forthcoming regularly or upon request, which should suffice for assisting the assessment of the quantum.  In the circumstances, those acting for the IO argues that the application for leave to obtain further and up-to-date joint reports from the existing medical experts is not necessary and should be refused.

38.  Regarding the expert of a new discipline, namely assistive technology, it is submitted that no sufficient and cogent grounds is advanced on how such expert evidence would benefit Ryan’s condition and development.  Reference is made to the lack of mention of that as recommendation by the treating specialists or the school.

39.  Those acting for the IO are silent on the proposal that the medical records and reports of the treating doctors of Ryan’s orthopaedic and visual impairment may be adduced and accepted as evidence in respect of his disabilities in these areas.

40.  Last, the IO complains that the delay in quantifying the claim on behalf of Ryan deprives it of its right to consider making sanctioned payments for the protection of its costs position.  Of course, whether and, if yes, when to make sanctioned payment are always in the domain of a defendant.  That said, as this is far from being a simple case, it may be said that the defendants should not fairly be expected to initiate the consideration of realistic settlement options such as sanctioned payment without concrete formulation of the quantum by the plaintiff first.  The complaint of the IO should perhaps be understood in such light.

41.  Those acting for the Management Co acknowledge effectively what this court said above about the inherent difficulty and uncertainty in crystallising the damage suffered by an infant victim of personal injuries for the purpose of assessment of damages. They also acknowledge the possible relevance of the up-to-date medical expert evidence in view of the young age of Ryan.  However, they warn against indefinite deferring of the assessment of damages and the incurring of further costs on expert reports which may become obsolete once Ryan outgrows them.  The inherent uncertainty surrounding long term prognosis and the need for finality may mean that any expert reassessment should only be done immediately prior to the assessment of damages so as to preserve the relevance of the updated expert evidence.  The court will just have to make the best estimate as to the future of Ryan on such basis for the purpose of the assessment of damages.

42.  As to the application to adduce expert evidence from an assistive technology expert, those acting for the Management Co, like the IO, see no justification.  They point out that the paediatric neurology experts deferred the issue of aid and equipment to the educational psychologist but not an assistive technology expert.  Then the educational psychologists made no mention of specific assistive technology needs.  The paediatric neuropsychologists merely suggested that assistive technology assessment may be needed while clarifying that that was beyond their expertise.  Those acting for the Management Co expect that if such assistive technology is indeed required, the concrete recommendation and estimation of cost should be obtainable from the existing educational psychology experts or occupational therapy experts.

43.  Regarding the records and reports of the treating doctors of Ryan’s orthopaedic and visual impairments, those acting for the Management Co are prepared to agree that they stand as evidence of the treatments and diagnoses as recorded but not the accuracy or relevance of the treating doctors’ opinion.  They reserve their position in respect of expert evidence in case of dispute.

44.  In terms of the proposed direction, the defendants are ad idem that the revised statement of damages should be filed and served when Ryan reaches 12 years old.  They would then file and serve their answers within 4 months thereafter.

UPDATING THE MEDICAL EXPERT EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTING DISCIPLINES

45.  The medical expert evidence of the various disciplines obtained is supposed to serve dual purposes.  The defendants question the evidential value of such evidence for the purpose of the assessment of Ryan’s conditions as it will become obsolete when Ryan outgrows it.  This is somehow undeniable.  However, the evidential value of such evidence in respect of the appropriateness and reasonableness of the treatments and therapies provided as well as the arrangements made and to be made for the recovery and development of Ryan at the particular stages remains.  So long as issue will be taken by any of the defendants in these respects in the assessment of damages, such evidence has not become obsolete.

46.  In a case involving an infant suffering not merely physical but also mental, psychological or developmental disabilities, one is always faced with the question of whether the conditions of the infant have reached the stage enough to form the basis for sensible assessment of his future loss and damage.  The question may not be answered with a view to certainty or else that will be focusing too much from one end of the spectrum of consideration.  It is just not realistic.  Continuing physical growth and mental development as well as education and exposure to vicissitudes in life at different stages inherently prevent such certainty as of now.  Therefore, a line will have to be drawn between the two ends of the spectrum of consideration.  Once the line has been drawn, uncertainty, as it inevitably remains, should not prevent the court from doing its best in the assessment by reference to all the evidence, including that in respect of future projection with the assistance of the medical expert evidence.

47.  The defendants, as mentioned, are ad idem that the line should be drawn at the time when Ryan turns 12 years old.  Objective as this may seem, supported by evidence this should be.  In other words, whilst this court would like to see that the quantum of claim could be projected in concrete terms at that time, whether that would be the sensible line to draw for such projection should nevertheless be supported by the medical and medical expert evidence.  Drawing the line conclusively now, albeit with endeavour in contemplation of the relevant circumstances, is neither sensible nor fair.

48.  To ensure that the line is drawn on an informed basis when Ryan becomes a teenager, the parties need medical expert evidence in support.  The expert opinion would by and large need to suggest that the condition of Ryan enables the experts’ projection of his future development and needs, albeit with inevitable uncertainty.  The experts would be expected to consider the further materials concerning Ryan’s treatments, schooling and daily life until then.  In view of the expert evidence obtained so far, it would appear that such further evaluation by the educational psychologists and developmental behavioural paediatricians would be relevant. The occupational therapists may be consulted not so much for an update but opinion, if any, on the issue of assistive technology discussed below.

ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY EXPERT EVIDENCE

49.  The basis for seeking assistive technology expert evidence should be concretely founded on the existing medical and medical expert evidence in the various disciplines.  The defendants take issue as to the lack of such basis at the moment, and this court tends to agree.

50.  Not doubting the availability of assistive technology expertise as a specialty, the court expects that the opinion on the assistive technology for the purpose of Ryan’s recovery and development, to be of assistance, should be field specific. Therefore, assuming that there is medical basis for exploring the need for assistive technology, I do not find it to be readily apparent that opinion evidence from an assistive technology expert, so called, should be preferable to such opinion from the existing medical experts in the various disciplines already involved.  Those acting for the Management Co fairly points out the obvious examples of the educational psychology and occupational therapy experts.  Relatively speaking, obtaining such further expert evidence, if indeed necessary, from the existing experts is also expected to save costs.

51.  In the circumstances, it is premature to direct for the obtaining of opinion evidence from an assistive technology expert without ascertaining from the medical or existing medical experts in the various disciplines first whether this is necessary; second whether this is within their expertise and readiness to provide; and third, if not, whether they would recommend such opinion to be obtained from an assistive technology expert with any areas of emphasis.  It should also be added that at least the developmental behavioural paediatricians did not recommend any assistive aid or equipment, including technology, other than those already recommended by the joint occupational therapy report.

ORTHOPAEDIC AND VISUAL TREATING DOCTORS’ RECORDS AND REPORTS

52.  Medical records and reports of the treating doctors of the orthopaedic and visual impairments of Ryan as evidence of the diagnoses made and treatments provided at the relevant times are expected to be admitted without disagreement.  Inherent in the diagnoses was the opinion inevitably formed by the treating doctors necessary for explaining the diagnoses.  This is not objectionable as if this were opinion evidence.  This does not render such documents inadmissible as evidence of those diagnoses and treatments as matters of fact.

53.  Nothing prevents those acting for Ryan, if so minded, to rely on the treating doctors’ records and reports without further expert evidence for the purpose of the assessment of damages.  Whether the correctness or propriety of the diagnoses or treatments provided by the treating doctors would be challenged is a matter for the defendants. The exact nature and extent of any challenge will determine whether medical expert evidence in those disciplines is necessary.  The parties’ position discernible from their written representations in this respect, it appears to me, is equivocal and reserved for the time being.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

54.  For the above reasons, this court would accede to the preservation of opportunity to obtain further medical expert reports in terms as set out in the order below.  The issue of assistive equipment and technology is expected to be raised as part of the instruction to the existing relevant experts.  By then, Ryan should have passed his 12^th birthday and should have completed his current curriculum year.  Subject to the up to date medical expert evidence available then, further case management including the revision of the statement of damages and the filing of the defendants’ respective answers are expected to follow.

55.  Hence the following order:

(1)     Leave be granted to the parties to adduce up to date medical expert evidence on quantum by way of joint expert report from their respective existing experts, namely:

(a)     paediatric neuropsychologists (Dr Dr Cheryl Newton and Professor Tatia Lee);

(b)     educational psychologists (Dr Caleb Knight and Dr Raymond Tang);

(c)     developmental behavioural paediatricians (Dr Michael Absoud and Dr Sylvia Doo); and

(d)     occupational therapists (Dr Shelley Chow and Professor Cecilia Wai Ping Li-Tsang).

(2)     Joint instructions to the medical experts under (1)(a) and (b) shall respectively be issued within 2 months from the date hereof;

(3)     For the purpose of (2) above, copies of up to date records and reports pertaining to the conditions and development of Ryan as well as the further witness statement of the Father shall be disclosed and provided;

(4)     The above joint instructions shall include that to solicit advice as to whether further joint examination of Ryan would be necessary for the purpose of compiling the up to date joint medical expert reports; such advice by the experts shall be given no later than 21 days after receipt of the joint instructions;

(5)     Insofar as any of the medical experts of the above disciplines advises on the need for further joint examination of Ryan, the joint examination shall be arranged on a date no later than 1 month thereafter;

(6)     The medical experts under (1)(a) and (b) above shall be compiled within 2 months after the receipt of the joint instructions or the joint examination, as the case may be pursuant to (5) above;

(7)     Upon obtaining the joint medical expert reports mentioned in (6), the same shall be provided to the medical experts under (1)(c) and (d) above within 14 days together with joint instructions to them for further medical expert reports; such instruction shall include that to solicit opinion, if can be provided, as to whether and, if yes, what assistive technology may be recommended for the purpose of Ryan as well as its projected cost;

(8)     (4), (5) and (6) above are repeated for the purpose of (7) above;

(9)     In compiling the above joint medical expert reports, The medical experts shall have regard to §§86-87 of Practice Direction 18.1, and shall state (i) the issue upon which they agree; (ii) the issues upon which they do not agree; (iii) the reasons and basis for their disagreement; and set out their statements of truth;

(10)     Checklist review hearing be fixed on 18 December 2026 at 10 a.m. before this court;

(11)     The parties do jointly write to this court within 14 days of compliance with (2)-(8) above for further case management directions including (i) revision of the revised statement of damages by the Father, if so advised; (ii) filing of answer by the defendants; (iii) any other directions such as readiness of the case for setting down for assessment of damages; and (iv) where appropriate, whether the checklist review hearing fixed pursuant to (10) above may be vacated upon written directions;

(12)     Liberty to apply.

56.  Both sides were quite entitled to be heard on the above disagreement, which was also legitimately argued, for the purpose of further case management.  Costs of and occasioned by the above argument as a sequel to the checklist review hearing in May 2025 should be in the cause.  The Father’s (as the 1^st plaintiff) own costs shall be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations.