Cheung Yee Mong, Edmond (a Minor, suing by his mother and next friend Beh Mooi Huae) (Respondent/Plaintiff) v So Kwok Yan, Bernard trading as Gloria English School (Appellant/1st Defendant)

Read the full judgment text of CACV 000243/1995 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 19 January 1996 before Bokhary JA, Godfrey JA, Liu JA.

Civil procedure – case management – interlocutory appeal – personal injuries – psychiatric evidence – Court of Appeal's power to review case management decisions – standard for interference – whether trial judge's order fell outside ambit of possible reasonable decisions – plaintiff a young boy who suffered injuries at school on 16 April 1991 and now residing in Canada – action claiming many millions of dollars in damages for very serious injuries – re-amended statement of claim filed 23 June 1994 alleging for the first time a delusional paranoid disorder of a persecutory type – defence put in 11 September 1995 one day before first pre-trial review – first pre-trial review granted 45 days for psychiatric report – at second pre-trial review on 14 November 1995, trial judge ordered psychiatric report to be produced within 30 days, refusing to accommodate defence's chosen psychiatrist Dr. William Green who could not travel to Canada until late December – Court of Appeal held that case management decisions rest peculiarly within province of the judge of first instance and will not be reviewed unless plainly wrong, that is, outside the ambit of possible reasonable decisions – in the instant case, the trial judge's decision was unjust and outside the ambit of possible reasonable decisions because it would deprive the defence of its chosen expert without any fault on its part, likely delay rather than save time, and potentially cause a denial of justice by rendering the trial unfair – appellate court emphasised that reversal of a case management order is a very rare occurrence, arising only in wholly exceptional circumstances – appeal allowed – substituted order that defence file and serve psychiatric evidence not later than 26 February 1996, with modifications to plaintiff's reply psychiatric evidence timetable – trial to proceed on 13 March 1996 with a further pre-trial review on 1 March 1996 – costs of the appeal to be costs in the cause.

Legal issues: Interference with case management decisions on appeal

Outcome: Appeal allowed; trial judge's order set aside and substituted with a new order permitting the defence to file and serve its psychiatric evidence by 26 February 1996, with modifications to the timetable for the plaintiff's reply psychiatric evidence.