Read the full judgment text of CACV 67/2019 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 3 May 2019 before Hon Kwan VP, Cheung JA, Chu JA.
Civil procedure — Expert evidence — Admissibility — Whether leave granted under Order 38, rule 36 of the Rules of the High Court covers pre-existing expert evidence — Construction dispute involving engineering reports prepared before leave was granted — Trial judge excluded nine prior reports prepared by Wong & Cheng Consulting Engineers Limited as inadmissible hearsay — Court of Appeal reversed, holding the nine reports admissible expert evidence given Dr Chan’s personal involvement and the connection to his later 2017 report — Plaintiff challenged Court of Appeal’s ruling by seeking leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal on questions of law regarding scope and retrospective effect of leave granted to call experts — Court of Appeal refused leave on grounds that the questions did not raise issues of great general or public importance and the claims of unfairness and procedural lacuna lacked substance — The court emphasized that issues on weight and procedural fairness related to trial and case management powers, not admissibility here — Costs of application awarded to the respondent. The substantive action trial proceeded with the expert evidence admitted consistent with the Court of Appeal's ruling.
Legal issues: Whether pre-existing expert evidence is admissible under leave granted for expert evidence
Outcome: Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; costs awarded to the defendant
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 2 cases