Read the full judgment text of CAMP 22/2019 AND CACV 67/2019 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 8 February 2019 before Hon Cheung JA, Kwan JA.
Civil procedure — Expert evidence — Admissibility — Leave to adduce reports under court order — Whether leave granted under 2015 Order sufficed for reliance on nine technical reports prepared by defendant's expert firm — Whether separate leave required — Court held reports prepared by Dr Chan, the appointed expert, and within scope of 2015 Order — Admissible except parts of August 2009 report relating to infrared thermography by third party excluded — Plaintiff’s application to exclude reports at trial upheld below but Court of Appeal set aside exclusion and allowed appeal — Costs orders allocated accordingly. The case clarifies the requirements for adducing expert evidence under court directions, distinguishing admissibility from evidential weight and the necessity of leave under procedural orders. It highlights the importance of disclosure and the proper scope of expert evidence reliance in construction defect disputes. The ruling permits defendant to rely on their engineer’s reports except for non-expert infrared testing details. Costs of different stages allocated between parties based on success in appeal and below.
Legal issues: Admissibility of expert evidence in 9 Reports · Admissibility of infrared thermography evidence in August 2009 report
Outcome: Allow appeal; set aside exclusion order; 9 Reports admissible as expert evidence except specified parts of August 2009 report
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 2 cases