張嘉雯 v. The Football Association of Hong Kong, China Ltd
Read the full judgment text of DCEC 1536/2023 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 26 September 2025.
1. There are before this Court 3 Summonses as follows:
Cites 4 cases
|
DCEC 1536/2023 [2025] HKDC 1556 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION CASE NO 1536 OF 2023 --------------------------
-------------------------
-------------------------- DECISION -------------------------- THE SUMMONSES 1.There are before this Court 3 Summonses as follows:
2.The following affirmations were filed in respect of A’s Summons for Interrogatories:
3.The following affirmations were filed in respect of A’s Summons for WS2:
4.The following affirmations were filed in respect of R’s Summons for SPE:
5.I read the affirmations and skeleton submissions filed by the parties and heard the submissions and arguments in court of A acting in person and R’s counsel Mr Brian Chok. BACKGROUND 6.A was the former Human Resources Director in the employ of R. Her claim herein for employees’ compensation is premised upon psychiatric injuries suffered at work allegedly resulted from the conduct of and treatment of her by Mr Tam Chau Long, former Chief Executor Officer (“CEO Tam”) of R, as well as the extremely stressful working environment and workload. 7.A’s case as pleaded in the Application and supported by her first witness statement filed on 17 April 2025 (spanning over 85 pages with attachments comprising 2 large folders) is that since November 2021 when working for R, the working environment had been stressful and her workload and pressure had become unmanageable and unreasonable. The controversial event concerns (i) a request by CEO Tam shortly before 1 pm on 9 February 2021 for A to prepare a meeting report by 2 pm of the morning meeting that had just finished by 1 pm; and (ii) the subsequent email sent by CEO Tam to A that afternoon, circulated to other management staff, criticizing her. The event resulted in intense chest pain, headache and anxiety suffered by A (“Accident”). She first sought treatment at St Paul’s Hospital on 13 February 2022, and was referred to consult a psychiatrist which she did on the following day on 14 February 2022. She was diagnosed to suffer from “adjustment disorder” allegedly due to work stress. 8.A claims in this action against R employees compensation in respect of the injuries allegedly sustained by her as a result of the Accident under the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance, Cap 282. 9.For the purposes of her claim herein, A was assessed by the Employees’ Compensation Medical Assessment Board (“MAB”) on 29 May 2024. As set out in the Certificate of Assessment (Form 7) issued on 12 June 2024, her work injury relates to mood disorder originated from incidents at work (工作事件引致情緒困擾). Permanent loss of earning capacity (“LEC”) caused by the Accident was assessed at 0%. 10.The assessment of 0% LEC was maintained upon review by the MAB as set out in the Certificate of Review of Assessment (Form 9) issued on 27 November 2024. A was granted sick leaves intermittently from 14 February 2022 up to 13 November 2024, over a period of more than 2.5 years. 11.Other than the Accident, there were subsequent to the Accident other incidents referred to by A in the Application and in her first witness statement. Such incidents A claims were also accidents which had aggravated her mental stress and condition (“Other Incidents”) as follows:
12.Evidence shows that A has since February 2022 attended numerous psychiatric consultations and clinical psychological services sessions, and had sought psychiatric treatment in both the public and private sectors. The medical reports record diagnoses and clinical impression of adjustment disorder/depressive symptoms/depressive episode. A’S SUMMONS FOR WS2 13.A’s case is that she took out the Summons for WS2 containing references to the Other Incidents in order to “perfect” (完善) the contents of the Application. 14.R opposes the Summons for WS2 and argues that the issues and the scope of witness statements are defined by the pleadings, and not the other way round, referring to Kwok Chin Wing v 21 Holdings Ltd (2013) 16 HKCFAR 663, at §21 – This is trite legal principle. 15.A’s Summons for WS2, with the admitted intention of “perfecting/amending” the Application, is clearly misconceived and should be dismissed. In any event, she has, as she acknowledged when pointed out by this Court, already made full references to and provided exemplary details of the Other Incidents in her first witness statement in respect of: the alleged 21 March 2022 incident (§§158-159), the 30 May 2022 incident (§§210-229) and the 15 August 2022 incident (§§261-276). 16.A confirmed during the hearing that she would not pursue, but agreed to withdraw, the Summons for WS2. R’S SUMMONS FOR SPE 17.R argues as set out in its counsel’s skeleton submissions that medical expert evidence from an SPE will assist the court in resolving the following medical issues in this case:
18.A’s main contention is that the evidence of the numerous medical records and reports from her treating doctors clearly supports her psychiatric injuries which manifested immediately after the Accident, and has sufficiently established causation by the Accident and the Other Incidents. 19.This cannot be right. The primary concern of treating doctors was about taking information from the patients, making diagnoses and prescribing and delivering treatments. The clinical records and reports of treating doctors, commissioned based on a doctor-patient trust relationship, are always admissible to prove the injuries, diagnoses, treatments, development and recovery. However, any opinion contained in treating doctors’ reports, often made without critical and objective assessment but based on the patient’s report of symptoms or complaints, is not admissible unless leave is obtained from the court. It is inappropriate to turn treating doctors into experts. See Hung Sau Fung v Lai Ping Wai [2012] 1 HKLRD 1 at §46 and Wong Cheuk v Falcon Insurance Co (Hong Kong) Ltd (unrep, DCEC 688/2008, 20 May 2009) at §§44-46. 20.A conceded in the course of the hearing to R’s Summons for SPE and agreed to submit to an SPE examination proposed by R. 21.Even if A had not made the concession, I would have been inclined to grant R’s application for adducing expert evidence from an SPE as such evidence would be relevant, necessary and of probative value, and will assist the court in resolving the medical issues arising, in accordance with the trite legal principles stated in the decision of Bharwaney J in Fung Chun Man v Hospital Authority and Another (unrep, HCPI 1113/2006, 24 June 2011), at §§9-16, referred to by R’s counsel. 22.I therefore grant leave for R to adduce medical expert evidence from SPE Dr Chung See Yuen as proposed by R. A’S SUMMONS FOR INTERROGATORIES 23.A by the Summons for Interrogatories sets out 32 extensive questions (spanning over 21 pages), most of which are questions arising from the following 2 witness statements adduced by R:
24.R argues that most of the questions contained in the interrogatories are irrelevant to the issues in disputes, aiming to challenge the credibility of and cross-examine R’s witnesses CEO Tam and HR Ng on their witness statements, amounting to a fishing expedition and are not necessary for disposing of the matter fairly or for saving costs. 25.Nevertheless R has, “solely for the purpose of saving costs of further argument” as stated in its solicitors’ letter dated 30 May 2025, agreed to answer Q4(ii), Q5(ii) and (vi), Q7(ii) and (iii), Q20(i) and Q24(i) of the interrogatories by affirmation. R opposes the rest of the questions contained in the interrogatories. Legal Principles on Interrogatories 26.The jurisdiction for the court to order interrogatories is provided under O 26 r1(1)-(3) of the Rules of the District Court (“RDC”):
27.As submitted by R’s counsel, interrogatories falling into the following categories should not be allowed: (Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2025, at commentary 26/4/6-13)
28.It was held in Lee Nui Foon v Ocean Park Corp (No. 2) [1995] 2 HKC 395, at 395D and 396G, that even where relevance and admissibility are established, the court retains an overriding discretion as to whether or not to allow interrogatories to be administered. 29.Upon the submissions of R’s counsel, A agreed to withdraw the following interrogatories (subject to those R has agreed to answer) in the course of the hearing:
30.A’s pleaded case herein arose out of the alleged Accident to her at work on 9 February 2022; it is premised on the manner of communication with and treatment of her by CEO Tam in the course of work, resulting in the medical conditions of adjustment disorder or mood disorder, aggravated by Other Incidents which occurred in the following few months until termination of her employment on 15 August 2022. 31.Bearing the relevant legal principles in mind, I now turn to the disputed interrogatories under Q2(i)-(vi), Q5(i), (iii)-(v), Q6(i) and (ii), Q7(v)-(ix), Q11 (i)-(iv), Q16(vii), Q21(i) and (ii), Q24(ii), Q25(i)-(iv), Q26(i)-(v), Q28(i) and (ii), Q29(i)-(iv), Q30, Q31(i)-(v) which A insists and R opposes to answer. 32.I set out in the table below briefly the contents of the questions in dispute, against which my rulings with brief reasons:
33.To conclude, A by the Summons for Interrogatories requests R to answer 32 extensive questions, of which R has agreed to answer Q4(ii), Q5(ii) and (vi), Q7(ii) and (iii), Q20(i) and Q24(i). 34.A during the hearing conceded to withdraw a substantial part of the interrogatories. 35.Of the remaining 14 disputed questions (in part or whole) A insists upon and R opposes to answer, which require this Court’s ruling, only Q31(i)-(iv) is allowed. COSTS Summons for WS2 / Summons for SPE 36.Upon A’s withdrawal of the Summons for WS2 and concession on R’s Summons for SPE at the hearing, I heard the parties’ submissions on costs of those Summonses. 37.There is no reason why costs should not follow the event. The fact that A is acting in person per se, as submitted by A, would not justify departure from the usual costs order. A is reminded to assess carefully relevance of the voluminous evidence and documents and bear in mind the serious risks of costs consequences in the conduct of her claim. 38.In respect of the costs of the Summons for WS2, after hearing parties’ submissions, I made an order that R should have costs, payable by A. I consider it appropriate to deal with the matter by way of summary assessment in accordance with O 62 r 9A(1)(a) of the RDC. For those purposes, I gave directions at the hearing for A to submit, within 7 days from the date of the hearing, a List of Objections to R’s Statement of Costs lodged on 14 August 2025 in respect of the Summons for WS2. 39.In respect of the costs of R’s Summons for SPE, I grant costs to R, payable by A, in respect of (i) A’s affirmation in opposition; (ii) R’s skeleton submissions; and (iii) 1/3 of the costs of the hearing (with certificate for counsel), to be taxed if not agreed, whilst the costs of the Summons for SPE (together with R’s affirmation in support) be in the cause. Summons for Interrogatories 40.R submitted a Statement of Costs dated 14 August 2025 in respect of the Summons for Interrogatories at the hearing. 41.I gave directions to A to submit, within 7 days from the date of the hearing, her Statement of Costs in respect of the Summons for Interrogatories pending my decision herein. I consider it appropriate also to deal with such costs by way of summary assessment. 42.I have further considered A’s written submissions on costs filed on 21 August 2025 in respect of the Summons for Interrogatories, in which she seeks an order of costs in the cause. 43.As shown in my decision above, most of the extensive interrogatories sought to be served under A’s Summons for Interrogatories have been ruled to be irrelevant to the issues in dispute in this action and not allowed in accordance with O 26 r1(1)-(3). R is the substantial winner of the Summons for Interrogatories. I exercise my discretion to grant 90% of the costs of the Summons (inclusive of the hearing) to R, payable by A. ORDER Summons for WS2 44.Leave was granted at the hearing to A to withdraw the Summons filed on 7 July 2025. 45.On costs, I have considered A’s List of Objections lodged on 21 August 2025. I order that costs of the summons be to R, payable by A, with certificate for counsel, summarily assessed at HK$48,000. 46.I further make an order nisi that A do make payment to R of the assessed costs of HK$48,000 within 28 days from the date of this order. In the absence of any party seeking to vary the payment deadline by way of application by letter within 14 days from the date of this order, this order shall become absolute. Summons for SPE 47.In respect of R’s Summons for SPE, upon A’s concession made at the hearing for R to adduce SPE evidence and submit to the proposed SPE examination, and having heard the parties’ submissions on costs, I made the following order at the conclusion of the hearing:
48.Consequential directions on SPE medical examination and commissioning of the SPE report were also given by this Court at the hearing. Summons for Interrogatories 49.In respect of A’s Summons for Interrogatories, I make the following order:
50.The above costs order in respect of the Summons for Interrogatories is nisi and shall become absolute in the absence of application by any party to vary the same by way of written submissions within 14 days from the date of this order. Upon an application for variation being made, the other party shall submit written submissions in reply within 14 days thereafter. Any application for variation of costs order nisi will be dealt with by paper disposal.
The Applicant appeared in person Mr Brian Chok, instructed by Kennedys, for the Respondent | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment