Rai Padamlal v. Dashing (Holi) Co Ltd and Another

HCPI 100/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 100 OF 2008

----------------------

----------------------

Before: Hon Fung J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 24 October 2008

Date of Ruling:  24 October 2008

----------------------

R U L I N G

----------------------

1.The case comes before me for variation and clarification of the directions given by the Master.   The clarification sought may be of some general interest.

2.The variation relates to the time-table for submission of expert reports.

3.The plaintiff’s expert, Dr Kumta, has prepared and served his expert report.  The defendant’s expert, Dr Patrick Wong, has yet to finalize his report pending the sight of the MRI films.  The MRI was conducted in June 2007 and request for them was made in early this year.  Unfortunately, they were not supplied by the hospital in question until yesterday.

4.Now, the parties are able to vary the time-table as follows: Dr Patrick Wong is to serve his expert report within 21 days from today hereof, and Dr Kumta to file his reply within 42 days thereafter.  And there will be a second pre-trial review on 12 January 2009 at 9:30 am.

5.The second matter relates to the standard direction customarily given by the Master that the medical records of the treatment hospitals be admitted as agreed evidence.  Both parties agree that they are to be admitted as the records made by the various makers without calling them.

6.Mr Millar, for the plaintiff, is apprehensive as to whether the term “agreed evidence” connotes any admission of the truth of the content.

7.My understanding of the PI List practice is that those records of treatment hospitals are always admitted without calling of the makers and the matters stated therein are not binding on the parties or the subsequent experts.  It is not dissimilar to the situation of parties preparing agreed bundles, that authenticity is not challenged, but no admission is made to the truth of the content.

8.I endorsed the continuation of the practice and I hope this ruling will help to clarify the situation. 

9.Of course, if authenticity or any other matter were challenged, the parties are always at liberty to make application to the Master.

10.I order the costs of today’s hearing be in the cause with Legal Aid taxation.

Mr. N. Millar of Messrs Littlewoods assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Plaintiff

Miss Liu Kit Sum, Margaret of Messrs Chong & Partners for the Defendants