Read the full judgment text of HCA 004576/2001 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 8 October 2002 before Chu J.
Civil procedure – expert evidence – leave to adduce expert evidence at trial – two-stage test: admissibility as expert evidence under s.58 of the Evidence Ordinance, Cap.8, and relevance to issues to be resolved – life insurance policies – plaintiff alleges misrepresentation and breach of contract or duty of care in connection with the 2nd Policy – whether expert evidence on insurance terminologies and calculations of returns and benefits is admissible and relevant – whether comparison of the 2nd Policy with policies of other insurers is admissible – background that the plaintiff held a Singapore life insurance policy dated 8 December 1998 and two policies with the 1st defendant, the 2nd Policy being the subject of the claim for a declaration that it is null and void or rescission and return of premium – pleaded representations concerning tailor-made policy, early redemption, high yielding saving plan, superiority to the Singapore Policy, and dividend participation starting from the 2nd year – first two premium instalments paid, and US$195,000 paid by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff on 12 July 2001 (disputed as withdrawal or loan) – whether to grant leave to adduce expert evidence – whether proposed evidence is relevant to the issues of whether the representations were made, were false, and whether there was a breach of duty of care – sections 6 and 7 of the draft expert report and the comparative conclusion held irrelevant and inadmissible – leave granted limited to special terms and usage in life insurance policies relevant to the three pleaded policies and a comparison of features and benefits between the 2nd Policy and the Singapore Policy, with one expert on each side – plaintiff to file and serve expert report within 14 days, defendants to file and serve their expert report within 42 days thereafter – action to be set down within 60 days in the fixture list for a 4-day trial before a bilingual judge – order nisi that costs of the hearings before the Listing Master and the Listing Judge on 2 October 2002 be in the cause.
Legal issues: Leave to adduce expert evidence at trial
Outcome: Leave to adduce expert evidence granted in part; the plaintiff's draft expert report to be revised and limited to the permitted scope, with action to be set down in the fixture list for a 4-day trial before a bilingual judge.
Cited by 10 cases