YAU YAU KAM v. SOUTH HORIZONS MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

                 HCPI 14/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 14 OF 2006

______________________

D E C I S I O N

______________________

1. This is an application by the defendants to take this case out of the Running List where it is at present and it has been ordered not to be warned before 3^rd January 2007. 

2. The defendants seek medical reports and hospital records in respect the plaintiff’s pre-accident conditions of diabetes mellitus, hypertension and nephropathy covering a period from 4 August 2004 up to the present time and updated medical reports from all departments of the hospitals where she has been attending regular follow up during the past year for these conditions.  It is said that the pre-existing conditions are relevant to the life expectancy of the plaintiff. 

3. The first matter I would note is that the pre-existing conditions were set out in the revised statement of damages in Schedule B.  These have all been admitted by the defendants in their Answer including the part in Schedule B where it was stated that the pre-existing conditions were kept under control. 

4. It has to be borne in mind that the plaintiff is of advancing years.  She is presently about 82 years old.  Although the plaintiffclaims a multiplier of 8 for future expenses, the trial judge could address the question of the relevant multiplier at trial.  As set out in the skeleton arguments on behalf of the plaintiff the multiplier and life expectancy is a matter for the trial judge, and references are made to the demographic trends statistics in arriving at an appropriate multiplier.  And according to the statistics submitted by the plaintiff’s solicitors, a female has an expectation of life up to 84.6 years of age.  The plaintiff is already 82 years old now.  I do not think the pre-existing conditions have much relevance to life expectancy in this case. 

5. Even if it were relevant I do not think it would be right, in my view, to make an order for discovery as I am of the opinion that it is not necessary to make an order for discovery for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs (O. 24, r. 8 of the R.H.C.). 

6. The plaintiff has suffered very severe injuries.  Having been knocked down on the pedestrian pavement with her legs rolled over and crushed, it resulted in both her lower limbs becoming unsalvageable and required above knee amputation.  She is wheelchair bound and confined at her home and needs care and attention for the rest of her life.  In view of the fact that the matter is already in the Running List not to be warned before 3 January 2007, it would, in my view, be prejudicial to the plaintiff to have the matter delayed any further.  Any delay in seeking the reports sought would no doubt be followed up with further expert opinion and it is unlikely that dates would be available for a few more months down the line.  That delay is, in my view, unacceptable and would be prejudicial to the plaintiff in view of her advancing years. 

7. Also, as a matter of case management, the order of Master B. Kwan made on 17 May 2006 has already limited medical evidence to one rehabilitation consultant for each party.  According to the chronology of the solicitors for the plaintiff, medical reports revealing the plaintiff’s pre-existing condition were sent to the defendants’ solicitors before that time.  It has only been left until this very late stage to seek these reports on her pre-existing condition which will have the necessary consequence of delaying this trial. 

8. In the circumstances I refuse the application and I dismiss the defendants’ summons.