Wong Yan Kwok Henry v. Lok Chi To also known as George Lok

HCPI 64/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1524

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 64 OF 2025

(transferred from DCPI 3590/2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

1.Pursuant to this court’s direction made at the checklist review hearing on 19 December 2025, the parties wrote to this court on the issue of medical expert evidence and, if necessary, whether the same should be adduced by a single joint expert (“SJE”).

THE CLAIM

2.This is the claim lodged in the District Court by the plaintiff against the defendant dentist for medical negligence in the consultations and treatments provided by the latter over a period of 17 years between August 2003 and the end of 2020. Liability and quantum are disputed. Quantum is projected in excess of HK$33 million. Hence the transfer of this case to this level of court.

3.Physical and psychological injuries are alleged. In respect of the alleged psychological injury, the plaintiff’s case is that he has been suffering anxiety disorder entailing lifelong psychiatric and psychological treatments. This, it is contended, resulted in his inability to work and hence loss of earnings by now and in the future. Future psychotherapy for life is also projected.

DIRECTION ON 19 DECEMBER 2025

4.At the last checklist review hearing, the stance of the plaintiff was that medical expert evidence on quantum is not necessary. Those acting for him submitted that the medical reports of his treating psychiatrist and psychotherapist suffice. The defendant disagreed.

5.Amongst others, I gave direction for the parties to jointly write to this court within 42 days on the issue of medical expert evidence including psychiatric expert evidence and SJE. This the parties did. However, those acting for the plaintiff wrote unilaterally to this court, stating that it was their client’s instruction to do so and to invite the defendant to write separately.

6.By now, one needs no reminder that disagreement with explanation by the parties could have been set out in their joint letter. More significantly, for the solicitors to consider that they had the liberty to act according to the instruction of their client instead of the express order of the court for a joint letter is difficult to understand. For them to consider the need to discharge their duty to their client, if so instructed, instead of their overriding duty to the court having made an order is even more difficult to understand.

NECESSITY FOR PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT EVIDENCE ON QUANTUM

7.The parties only speak of psychiatric expert evidence on quantum for the present purpose.

8.Notwithstanding my contrary preliminary observation made during the hearing, those acting for the plaintiff maintained in their subsequent letter their stance that such expert evidence is not necessary. On the face of it, they put forward the following reasons:

(1) The plaintiff has been seeking psychiatric treatment from Dr Vincent Wong (“Dr Wong”) in Malaysia from November 2020 up to present, and a medical report was already issued on 19 April 2021. The plaintiff will obtain an updated medical report from Dr Wong.

(2) The plaintiff has disclosed a medical report from treating psychologist Dr Joel Low (“Dr Low”) in Malaysia.

(3) The plaintiff has recently started treatment by another psychotherapist Ms Phoebe Yee (“Ms Yee”), and will obtain a medical report from Ms Yee.

9.This court does not see how the above could be reasons for dispensing with psychiatric expert evidence on quantum.

10.The above are the treating doctors, and their medical reports are evidence of the diagnosis and treatments prescribed for the plaintiff. Whilst their medical reports are expected to contain opinion formed by the treating doctors for the purpose of diagnosis and explaining the treatments prescribed, they are primarily evidence as to the fact of treatment. They are not readily admissible as expert opinion for the purpose of assessment of quantum. This is trite.

11.The plaintiff is of course entitled to make his own considered decision, if so advised, not to seek to adduce psychiatric expert evidence on quantum. However, he may not prevent the defendant from doing so, if the defendant takes issue as to the diagnosis or the appropriateness of any of such treatment by now and, as projected by the plaintiff, for life or the impact of the alleged psychiatric condition on the plaintiff’s alleged total loss of earning capacity since 2004. How else the defendant will be in a position to substantiate the issue taken as to any of those in the absence of medical expert evidence of the relevant discipline. This is expected to be understood.

12.The medical report of Dr Wong was dated April 2021. The diagnosis was anxiety disorder secondary to chronic dental condition. The report recorded the results of the mental state examination conducted in January 2021, which suggested that the plaintiff was cooperative, alert, conscious and oriented to time, place and person. His appearance of anxiety was moderate. His speech was relevant and coherent. His thought process was logical and rational. There were no depressive or psychotic symptoms. Cognitive assessment revealed good memory, both long term and short term. His attention and concentration were good. Notwithstanding these findings, Dr Wong recommended monthly treatment for life.

13.According to Dr Low’s medical report dated November 2025, the plaintiff went to see him only twice in June and July 2022 respectively. Preliminary impression was uncomplicated bereavement, which was typical aftereffects of a significantly distressing event and fell short of any full clinical diagnosis. No therapeutic goal was set or attempted.

14.Partly based on the above medical evidence, the plaintiff projects his claim for pain, suffering and loss of amenities as well as total loss of earnings since 2004. He also claims continuing total loss of earnings on the basis of working lifespan until at least 80 years old as well as future medical expenses. These account for a substantial portion of the HK$33 million claimed. The plaintiff ought not to be surprised, if the defendant takes issue and hence his intention to adduce medical expert evidence on quantum.

15.Those acting for the plaintiff should have readily appreciated the situation mentioned above. Hence my categorization of what they advanced as what merely appear to be reasons. When probed about this during the last hearing, solicitor appearing for the plaintiff actually indicated that this also had to do with his client’s consciousness about costs[1]. Putting aside the expectation that solicitors would advise the plaintiff what it normally takes in a medical negligence action, ironically the said concern about costs is not consistently addressed when they come to consider the next question.

APPROPRIATENESS OF SJE

16.O38, r4A of the rules on both levels of court provides:

“(1) In any action in which any question for an expert witness arises, the Court may, at or before the trial of the action, order 2 or more parties to the action to appoint a single joint expert witness to give evidence on that question.

(2) Where the parties cannot agree on who should be the joint expert witness, the Court may–

(a) select the expert witness from a list prepared or identified by the parties; or

(b) direct that the expert witness be selected in such manner as the Court may direct.

(3) Where an order is made under paragraph (1), the Court may give such directions as it thinks fit with respect to the terms and conditions of the appointment of the joint expert witness, including but not limited to the scope of instructions to be given to the expert witness and the payment of the expert witness’s fees and expenses.

(4) Notwithstanding that a party to the action disagrees with the appointment of a single joint expert witness to give evidence, the Court may, subject to paragraph (6), make an order under paragraph (1) if it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so after taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

(5) The circumstances that the Court may take into account include but are not limited to–

(a) whether the issues requiring expert evidence can readily be identified in advance;

(b) the nature of those issues and the likely degree of controversy attaching to the expert evidence in question;

(c) the value of the claim and the importance of the issue on which expert evidence is sought, as compared with the cost of employing separate expert witnesses to give evidence;

(d) whether any party has already incurred expenses for instructing an expert who may be asked to give evidence as an expert witness in the case; and

(e) whether any significant difficulties are likely to arise in relation to–

(i) the choosing of the joint expert witness;

(ii) the drawing up of his instructions; or

(iii) the provision to him of the information and other facilities needed to perform his duties.

(6) Where a party to the action disagrees with the appointment of a single joint expert witness to give evidence, the Court shall not make an order under paragraph (1) unless the party has been given a reasonable opportunity to appear before the Court and to show cause why the order should not be made.

(7) Where the Court is satisfied that an order made under paragraph (1) is inappropriate, it may set aside the order and allow the parties concerned to appoint their own expert witnesses to give evidence.”

17.The considerations in exercise of the discretion of the court were explained in this court’s decision in Tamang Dhirendra v Toko Construction & Machinery Limited [2025] HKCFI 2037.

18.By the order dated 19 December 2025, the parties were directed to state whether it is appropriate to obtain medical expert evidence from a SJE and, if not, why not. Where the parties fail to agree, they should state their respective stances with succinct submissions.

19.In their letter, solicitors for the plaintiff stated that if psychiatric expert evidence is necessary, they would instruct their “solo psychiatric expert”. As understood by the solicitors for the defendant and this court, those acting for the plaintiff oppose to instructing SJE. The solicitors for the defendant stated that if this is the way forward, they would have no objection and would also proceed to instruct their own psychiatric expert on quantum.

20.Whilst stating their stance for their solo psychiatric expert, those acting for the plaintiff tendered no explanation in line with O38, r4A(5) or the order of this court as to why SJE is inappropriate. The concern about costs mentioned above seems to no longer feature in their consideration if medical expert evidence on quantum will be adduced.

21.No doubt the quantum projected is substantial, which often attracts argument that the costs of separate experts would not end up being out of proportion. As discussed before, this is relevant but hardly more significant than the other considerations, particularly when such argument seems to be readily available in any case falling within the monetary jurisdiction of this level of court.

22.The plaintiff has chosen to disclose the medical evidence mentioned above for the present purpose. Such evidence suggests not a trace of potential complexity. Nor do those acting for him suggest potential controversy in terms of methodology or assessment of any particular area or aspect of the psychiatry involved in the circumstances of this case, in respect of which the court may find opinion from and debate between separate experts to be of particular assistance to adjudication. Merely that different experts may come up with different opinion does not suffice.

23.In terms of significance, the psychiatric injury is but one resultant condition said to have contributed to the alleged loss of earning capacity and special damages, present and future. The other injury is physical/dental. Whether and, if yes, how that will feature in the consideration of medical expert opinion on quantum will have to be considered separately.

24.As the matter now stands, this court does not see why it is inappropriate to obtain psychiatric expert evidence on quantum from a SJE.

DIRECTIONS

25.I give leave to the parties to adduce psychiatric expert evidence on quantum by way of SJE.

26.In view of how and what those acting for the plaintiff decided to write to this court without compliance with the order made on 19 December 2025, there are before me only the parties’ respective nominated psychiatric experts if instructed separately. They shall now comply with §4(d) of the order made, namely:

(1) identify the SJE if agreed;

(2) if the parties disagree on the choice of SJE, nominate 2 candidates each for selection together with their respective (i) curriculum vitae; (ii) fees; (iii) earliest dates for the examination; (iv) time when the SJE report is expected to be ready; or alternatively propose any other manner in which the SJE may be selected.

27.The parties shall comply with the above within 21 days from the date hereof.

28.The parties should note that their nominations, if so advised, may consist of those already nominated as separate experts mentioned above.

29.Further, in view of the representation by those acting for the plaintiff that further treatment reports would be obtained from Dr Wong and Ms Yee, it shall be the duty of the solicitors to formulate the timetable for their joint instruction to the SJE so that these further treatment reports would be made available to the expert. Hence the earliest probable time for the expert’s examination of the plaintiff. The parties are expected to be realistic about their answer to §(2)(iii) and (iv) of the order to be complied with as mentioned in §26 above.

30.Costs of and occasioned by the above issue of medical expert evidence be in the cause.

Mr. Bilan Mak of B. Mak & Co., for the plaintiff

Ms. Jennifer Lee of Johnson Stokes & Master, for the defendant

Written submissions by B. Mak & Co., for the plaintiff

Written submissions by Johnson Stokes & Master, for the defendant