P v. D1 AND ANOTHER

DCCJ 811/2020

[2025] HKDC 1496

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 811 OF 2020

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

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

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

DECISION

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

1.  This is a further directions hearing arising from P v D1 [2025] 2 HKLRD 1018 [2025] HKDC 744 (“April Decision”) and [2025] HKDC 1337. Unless otherwise stated, I shall adopt the abbreviations used in the April Decision.

2.  Mr Samuel Chan, Counsel for the Official Solicitor, helpfully lodged written submissions on 25 August 2025. Mr Dicky Cheung, leading Ms Esther Leung, Counsel for P, helpfully lodged written submissions on 27 August 2025. I have, of course, read everything. D2, acting in person, addressed me orally today, ie on 29 August 2025.

3.  In gist, the position of the Official Solicitor, and therefore of D1, is that he should be allowed to amend his pleading once, by 13 October 2025 at the latest, after which the part-heard trial should resume before me, with leave to D1 to conduct his “top-up” cross-examination of P’s factual witnesses. D1 may also wish to adduce fresh expert evidence.

4.  On the other hand, P says D1 should never be given any blank cheque to amend pleadings without a summons, supporting affirmation, or draft. Insofar as D1 wishes to adduce expert evidence from a psychiatrist, D1 should never be given a blank cheque either. If all that D1 would really like to do is to concede an issue, that can be done by correspondence, or by Counsel’s speech, without amending any document, and without adducing any evidence. P also wants costs, as P says D1 wasted P’s costs.

5.  D2 takes a neutral stance on everything but would like to give sworn live oral evidence at the resumed trial.

6.  I agree with P that D1 should never be given any blank cheque without a summons, supporting affirmation or draft. I should, however, let D1 have a reasonable opportunity to make necessary applications between now and the resumed trial. Bearing in mind my various case management duties, including the need to consider dealing with a case without requiring litigants to physically attend Court under Order 1A rule 4(2)(j) of the Rules of the District Court (Cap 336H), I should if possible deal with D1’s future applications on paper without any oral hearing. Reasonable deadlines must be given for case management purposes.

7.  As to costs, whilst I can see the force of P’s arguments, I am of the view that I should reserve the issue to myself and decide the issue at a later stage.

8.  All things considered, I hereby make the following order: -

(1)  The part-heard trial shall resume before DDJ Kenneth KY Lam at 9:30 a.m. on 8 October 2025 with 9, 10 and 13 October 2025 also reserved (“the Resumed Trial”).

(2)  Unless this Court directs otherwise, future interlocutory applications to be made by any party between today and the Resumed Trial shall be substantively disposed of by DDJ Kenneth KY Lam on paper without any hearing.

(3)  Unless D1 takes out a formal application by summons, with supporting affirmation, for leave to adduce expert evidence, on or before 15 September 2025, D1 shall be barred from making any such or similar application.

(4)  Unless this Court directs otherwise, the Resumed Trial shall start by D2 giving live oral evidence and all issues as to the status and/or weight of the evidence previously given by D1 shall be left to closing submissions.

(5)  Unless this Court directs otherwise, P shall tender her 3 factual witnesses for D1’s “top-up” cross-examination at the Resumed Trial, and this shall take place after D2 completed his live oral evidence, with a time limit of 1 hour for each of such witnesses.

(6)  Unless this Court directs otherwise, parties shall make their closing submissions on 13 October 2025.

(7)  Liberty to apply.

(8)  Costs reserved.

9.  I thank Mr Dicky Cheung, Ms Esther Leung, and Mr Samuel Chan for their most able assistance.