Chan Ka Kit v. A. S. Watson & Co., Ltd

HCPI554/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 554 OF 2007

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

Before: Hon. Fung J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 11 September 2008

Date of Ruling: 11 September 2008

__________

R U L I N G

__________

1.The defendant applied to remove the case from the Warned List and to administer interrogatories on the plaintiff. 

2.The case was set down in July 2008.  No application was made to serve the interrogatories.  The questions related to the current employment of the plaintiff. 

2.  The plaintiff had an accident in August 2005 while lifting heavy object during the course of employment with the defendant.  He had sick leave until October 2006 when he returned to work with the defendant with lighter duties, but was dismissed a year later in October 2007 by reason of redundancy.   The plaintiff said that he was unemployed until about March 2008.

3.In May this year, the plaintiff’s solicitors, by correspondence, informed the defendant that the plaintiff had found a new job as a fuel station attendant, and disclosed his income from April onwards.  Then the defendant asked for more details, and after the setting down, the current employer's letter reporting the income was disclosed. 

4.As the plaintiff has stated that his income was paid through auto-pay, the defendant asked for updated bank statements, and they were supplied on 18 August 2008.  Tthe defendant discovered that the reported income did not feature in the updated bank statements,but on the other hand, the bank statements show recurrent credit entries of various amounts between $10,000 to $20,000.  Hence, the defendants sought to administer interrogatories as to two issues:

(1)    On the basis that the income was paid by auto-pay, into which account they were paid;

(2)    Explanation as to the various amounts shown in the statements. 

7.Mr. Pang, for the plaintiff, raised 3 objections. 

(1)  It was late;

(2)  It should have been by correspondence before any application;

(3)  The questions could be asked at the trial. 

8.No doubt it is late, but the recent development with the updated information took place late, and considering the progress of this case since the accident and the setting-down, the delay is not inordinate and the defendant had not been idle in not pursuing the matter earlier. 

9.In any case, Mr. Pang indicated objections to the administering of the interrogatories, and I cannot see whether by correspondence or by application makes any difference. 

10.No doubt a lot of questions could be asked at the trial, but if it concerns the gathering of documentary evidence, the sooner the better because the plaintiff might ask for time to get the relevant bank statements, and an adjournment, even for half a day, is undesirable.

11.I shall allow the interrogatories in relation to the bank account for the receipt of the reported income because the enquiry of them only at the trial may entail the delay in obtaining the bank statements.  As to the questioning of the other credit entries, they can be raised at the trial. 

13.The interrogatories also referred to certain photographs but after clarification with Ms Sy, for the defendant, that there is not any real issue as to the authenticity, and the interrogatories sought are withdrawn.

14.Hence, I only allow the interrogatories under paragraphs 1 to 3 of the application and the case is taken out from the warned list.  The interrogatories are to be served and filed not later than 29 September 2008.

15.The case will be put back into the Warned List 2008 immediately upon the filing and serving of interrogatories.

16.As the parties are partly successful respectively, costs are to be in the cause with Legal Aid taxation. 

Mr Pang Yiu-kwong, of Messrs Michael Pang & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Plaintiff

Ms Sy Hana Connie, instructed by Messrs Deacons, for the Defendant