Yip Koon Man v. Yuen Long Merchants Association Secondary School
Read the full judgment text of DCEC 602/2008 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment.
1. The Applicant was employed by the Respondent as a school labourer/gardener. He claimed that on 11 th October 2007 after shovelling mud into a large plastic bag in the course of employment at the school and tying it up, he hurt his back when he tried to lift the bag by both hands (“ Accident ”). He further claimed he felt back pain. After resting for 10 minutes, he went to seek medical treatment at Tuen Mun Hospital (“ TMH ”).
Cited by 6 cases
|
DCEC602/2008 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION CASE NO. 602 OF 2008 ------------------------
------------------------ Coram: H H District Judge Marlene Ng in Chambers (open to the public) Date of Paper Application: 22nd June, 2009 Date of Paper Ruling: 30th June, 2009 ---------------------- RULING --------------------- I. Introduction 1. The Applicant was employed by the Respondent as a school labourer/gardener. He claimed that on 11th October 2007 after shovelling mud into a large plastic bag in the course of employment at the school and tying it up, he hurt his back when he tried to lift the bag by both hands (“Accident”). He further claimed he felt back pain. After resting for 10 minutes, he went to seek medical treatment at Tuen Mun Hospital (“TMH”). 2. On 20th May 2008, the Applicant commenced the present proceedings against the Respondent to claim for employees’ compensation. The Respondent admitted the employment relationship, but denied liability by putting the Applicant to proof of his claim. The Applicant claimed the Respondent was estopped from adopting such stance, but the reasons for such assertion do not concern the present paper application. 3. On 19th February 2009, I granted inter alia the following paper directions :
4. The Experts completed their joint psychiatric expert report on 1st June 2009 (“Report”). The Applicant wished to put to the Experts 5 questions set out in his solicitors’ letter dated 4th June 2009 to the Respondent’s solicitors for their clarification, and presumably to request them to prepare a joint supplemental psychiatric expert report. On 9th June 2009, the Respondent’s solicitors replied that no further clarification from the Experts was necessary. 5. The solicitors for both parties jointly wrote to me for paper disposal of the Applicant’s application for joint supplemental psychiatric expert opinion pursuant to paragraph 87(2) of Practice Direction 18.2. II.Witness statements 6. Ho Chee Wai (vice principal of the Respondent, “Mr Ho”) said he only came to know the alleged Accident subsequently. However, he claimed in his witness statement that the pile of mud and soil at the school had already been cleared by 10th October 2007, and that he asked the Applicant to clear away rotten leaves found on a pathway within the school on 13th October 2007. The Applicant informed Mr Ho it was a difficult task, and after school on the same day Mr Ho found out that the Applicant had taken leave and left the school. 7. The Applicant in his witness statement claimed that on 8th October 2007 Mr Ho instructed him to clear and dispose of some mud at the school within the same day. The Applicant anticipated he would not be able to finish such work by himself, but Mr Ho refused his request for assistance by other co-workers. Although the Applicant said he would try his best, he was unsure whether he would be able to finish within the same day. 8. The Applicant claimed Mr Ho instructed him to put the mud in plastic bags, and then place the bags at the entrance of the carpark (“Entrance”) near the garage (“Garage”). He then started to shovel wet mud into large plastic bags. When a bag was a third full (about 60-70 catties), he would use a hand trolley to transport it to the Garage next to the Entrance. He spent 40-45 minutes each day from 8th to 10th October 2007 attending to such work. 9. At about 3:00pm on 11th October 2007, the Applicant continued with such work. He claimed that he transported 2 bags of mud on each hand trolley trip, and the Accident happened after he transported at least 6 bags of mud to the Garage. At the time of the Accident, he had placed 1 plastic bag of mud on the hand trolley. When he tried to lift the 2nd bag of mud, he felt severe pain at his back and dropped the bag on the ground. After resting for 10 minutes his back pain did not subside, so the Applicant telephoned to tell the school he had sprained his back and would go to TMH for treatment. 10. According to the witness statement of Pan Wa Chun (“Madam Pan”) who is the Applicant’s wife, the Applicant telephoned her on 11th October 2007 to inform her of the Accident. At that time, she was at TMH with their son who was being treated for finger injury. She met with the Applicant when he arrived at TMH. III. Injuries and treatment 11. The Applicant went to TMH’s accident and emergency department (“AED”). His chief compliant was low back pain after back strain. No X-ray was taken, but medical examination revealed he was alert and could walk unaided. There was tenderness over left back at L2-3 level. The power of both limbs was full. He was able to tolerate straight leg raising up to 45º bilaterally. No neurological deficit was elicited. According to Madam Pan’s witness statement, the treating doctor gave the Applicant an injection. 12. The Applicant was treated and transferred to the physiotherapy department (“PD”) for pain relief and training. The Applicant added in his witness statement that he was discharged with medication and granted 4 days’ sick leave. 13. The Applicant claimed the pain not only did not subside with medication and rest but rather it increased, so he returned to TMH’s AED on 15th November 2007. Medical examination revealed paraspinal tenderness over the left back, but no neurological deficit. The Applicant was treated and suggested to continue follow up with the PD. 14. The Applicant claimed that since the pain did not subside, he consulted Dr Yeung Man (“Dr Yeung”) on 18th October 2007, and sought treatment from Yung Fung Shee GOPC (“YFS Clinic”) on 26th October 2007. On referral by the YFS Clinic, the Applicant had an x-ray at TMH but there was no fracture or bony lesion. Madam Pan recalled that the Applicant consulted Dr Yeung several times. 15. The Applicant said he continuously attended the YFS Clinic, Yuen Long Jockey Club GOPC (“YLJC Clinic”) and Tin Shui Wai Health Centre due to persistent back pain, and received analgesics and physiotherapy treatment at the outpatient clinics. He attended the YLJC Clinic between 30th October 2007 and 12th January 2008. On 30th October 2007, he complained of back pain and inability to work. Physical examination revealed local tenderness at the back, no local swelling, forward flexion to both knees, and no lower limbs neurological deficit. On 12th January 2008, he still complained of back pain. Physical examination revealed mild local tenderness and muscle spasm over paraspinal region, decreased forward flexion above knee, and negative straight leg raising test. 16. The Applicant also received physiotherapy and occupational therapy treatments at TMH. According to him, the physiotherapy treatment started in/about November 2007 with 3-4 sessions per week and ceased in February 2008. The occupational therapy sessions started on 7th March 2008 and were still continuing in April 2008. The Applicant was never advised to have surgery. 17. The Applicant said that on referral by Dr Yeung he attended TMH’s orthopaedic and traumatology unit (“OTU”) on 23rd January 2008. Thereafter, he continued to attend follow up at TMH’s OTU, and was still doing so at 3-4 months’ intervals when he was jointly examined by the Experts in April 2009. 18. Despite various treatments at the government hospitals, the Applicant and Madam Pan claimed that the Applicant’s condition did not improve, so starting from 19th October 2007 he consulted bonesetters in the PRC and applied herbal medicine which led to transient improvement. However, no MRI or CT scan was done. 19. The Applicant first attended Tuen Mun Mental Health Clinic on 17th July 2008 upon referral from the orthopaedic clinic for low mood. He complained of pervasive low mood related to severe low back pain with loss of interest, poor sleep and appetite and increased irritability. He scolded family members over trivial matters, which was out of character, and needed prompting in self-care and daily activities. He felt hopeless and helpless with fleeting suicidal idea but no concrete plan. Mental examination showed that he was neat and calm with downward gaze, soft voice and slow pace, but relevant and coherent speech. No psychotic symptom was elicited. He was diagnosed to be suffering from moderate depressive disorder. Medications were prescribed for symptomatic control, but by the date of the medical report of Castle Peak Hospital (ie 15th October 2008) no obvious clinical improvement was noted yet. 20. According to the Applicant, the psychiatric medication only helped him to sleep for 1-2 hours. Then he would wake up and sleep interruptedly afterwards. His wife accompanied him to attend psychiatric follow up every few weeks, but he did not know whether his wife was receiving psychiatric treatment. The couple had seen the medical social worker for counselling. IV. Applicant’s complaints 21. The Applicant claimed that after the Accident there was back pain on walking, and it would get worse when the air-conditioner was on or the weather got worse or if he stood for a long time or if he sat for more than 30 minutes. He had to get up and sit for a while after sleeping for 1-2 hours. 22. The Applicant said that by April 2008 his condition had improved, but the problems were basically the same. There was pain when he walked, and it would worsen when the weather got cold. There was some pain when he was sitting, and he had to stand up to relieve the pain. He had to change posture frequently and could not run fast due to increase in back pain. He needed to use handrails as support when climbing stairs, and to take painkillers for his back pain. 23. According to the Report, the Applicant rated his pain to be worse such that the intensity progressed from 6-7/10 at the time of the Accident to 8-9/10. Milder pain (3-4/20) lasting for 2-3 hours occurred most of the time. More severe pain (9-10/10) lasting for 30-60 minutes occurred 2-3 times daily. The Applicant estimated only 10% of his time was pain-free. He took analgesics 4 times daily and also drugs given to him by his wife. If the pain were really severe, he would go to the AED to have an injection, which would help to control the pain for a day. 24. The Applicant said his daily routine started with waking up at 7-8am, going to the park for a walk, taking breakfast, walking for about an hour, resting and watching television at home, having simple lunch with his wife, and having supper prepared by his family. He would talk to his friends by telephone. Sometimes he would visit his family in the PRC by taking a day trip or overnight stay. The bus trip to the PRC took 1-2 hours. 25. Mentally, the Applicant complained of interrupted sleep with only 3-5 hours’ sleep each night. He felt depressed, unhappy and irritable, and his temper was getting worse. He had suicidal thought of jumping from height or burning charcoal, but did not make any suicidal attempt. He often thought (and more so when he could not sleep at night) about his various stressors, his pain, his work capacity, the financial strain, and his relationship with his wife. He was worried that his wife might reject and leave him. 26. The Applicant told the Experts that he felt irritable and had scolded pedestrians who bumped into him in the street. He also scolded his wife and children. He claimed he was fearful of returning to the school, and had to ask his wife to hand the sick leave certificates to the school. 27. The Applicant said his memory and concentration were impaired after the Accident with poor recall of what others said. He forgot to collect change or where he kept his belongings. He could not retain the information when he watched television. The Applicant said his appetite was also impaired, and had lost 10 pounds after the Accident. 28. The Applicant claimed that although he had no difficulty with personal care, he could not manage domestic work or return to work as a result of the pain, tiredness and low mood. Madam Pan in her witness statement claimed that because of her own work injury on 17th April 2005 and the Applicant’s Accident, they could not manage housework after the Accident, so they employed a part-time domestic helper for assistance. 29. The Applicant further claimed that the effect on his ability to return to his job were (a) inability to do any manual handling, sitting or standing for a while, (b) getting pain after walking, sitting or standing for a while, (c) inability to run or jog quickly, (d) restricted movements, (e) difficulty in going up or down stairs and having to walk very slowly, and (f) inability to carry heavy objects beyond 18 lbs. V. Mental state examination by the Experts 30. When the Applicant attended mental examination by the Experts, he walked without aid in a normal gait. He got up from time to time to pace around and massage his back for a few minutes. He had no eye contact with the Experts throughout the interview. At first he was very sluggish in response and spoke in a soft voice, but becoming more spontaneous towards at the end of the examination. His mood appeared to be miserable, but there was no active suicidal intention or abnormal thought/perception. 31. Although the Applicant gave most of the background history coherently, both Experts agreed that his speech was at times evasive and vague, and he often gave answers that he could not remember or that his memory was poor. He gave incorrect answer for the date of the examination, and said he could not write one of the characters of his son’s name or could not remember his children’s birthdays. He could not recall the 3 objects he was asked to remember after multiple attempts and gave approximate answers. He also gave similar approximate answers in other tests of simple calculation, common sense question and copying figures. According to the Experts,
VI. Dr Law’s opinion 32. Dr Law noted the Applicant was mentally well before the Accident, but soon afterwards developed a cluster of mental symptoms that included low and irritable mood, sleep disturbance, suicidal idea, impaired motivation/interest, which symptoms Dr Law considered to be reactive to the Applicant’s physical disability and associated psychosocial stressors including his disability in returning to work, impairment in his relationship with the family and the financial strain. Dr Law opined that such presentation was compatible with adjustment disorder with depressed mood, which was mainly due to the Accident and consistent with the injury. 33. Although depressed mood might intensify the feeling and intensity of pain, Dr Law did not think the Applicant’s complaints of pain were caused by psychiatric disorder. Rather “there is evidence that [the Applicant] has a tenancy to exaggerate his complaints” and intended to present the worst picture to the Experts. Dr Law opined that the relevant indicators for such phenomenon included the Applicant’s approximate answers given during the mental state examination, and the absence of any brain injury so that there should not be significant impairment of cognitive functions. 34. Dr Law said the intensity of the pain and the associated physical disabilities had to be assessed and determined by orthopaedic experts, but the medical reports suggested that the Applicant sustained a sprained back with soft tissue injury and no bony abnormality. Dr Law opined that the reactive mood disturbance should be proportional to the extent of physical suffering, and hence the severity of the adjustment disorder should be mild and the prognosis good. It would depend on the prognosis of the orthopaedic disability. He concluded as follows :
Dr Law was of the view that the sick leave for treatment and rehabilitation should be about 3 months after the first consultation with the psychiatrist. 35. Since the severity of the adjustment disorder with depressed mood was mild, the Applicant was able to carry out most useful functions. “He is deemed fit to return to his previous job judging solely from the psychiatric perspective. His work capacity should only be limited by his physical disability. The degree of permanent impairment of the whole person as well as the loss of earning capacity due to the adjustment disorder should be mild.” VII. Dr Wong’s opinion 36. The Applicant complained of very severe and persistent back pain due to a trivial injury leading to severe functional limitation that resulted in inability to work and made him depressed with a number of other psychiatric symptoms. 37. Pain (which was always subjective however solid or otherwise the objective reasons for such pain) and weakness could be looked at from the physical and psychiatric angles. On the physical side, there were no objective findings by the treating doctors. On the psychiatric side, although it was well recognised that pain was a common concomitant of psychiatric disorders, Dr Wong opined it was “extremely unlikely that the pain is of such severe and persistent degree”. According to the Applicant’s account, any alleged psychiatric symptoms he might have suffered were caused by the severe back pain, so if such back pain could not be substantiated by physical explanation, then he would have lost the most important reason for his psychiatric symptoms. “In other words, there are no orthopaedic or psychiatric reasons to account for [the Applicant’s] severe and persistent back pain.” 38. Dr Wong opined that even with full benefit of doubt in favour of the Applicant, he only suffered from adjustment disorder with depressed mood in the first 6 months after the Accident since he probably had back pain and found it difficult to cope with work during that period. He was probably also worried about his work. Dr Wong was of the view that as the Applicant received treatment for his pain, the pain should have improved and then recovered, and the same improvement and recovery should have occurred to the adjustment disorder with depressed mood. But instead the Applicant claimed he got worse. 39. Dr Wong opined that the deterioration was due to the Applicant’s “abnormal sick role” (ie perpetuation of the role of illness) and could not be explained by any genuine physical or psychiatric disorders. An abnormal sick role was not a psychiatric disorder but an actively contrived repertoire of symptoms and behaviour, and the Applicant’s many approximate answers during the mental state examination were strong evidence that he actively feigned the psychiatric symptoms. Dr Wong concluded that the Applicant no longer suffered from adjustment disorder with depressed mood, so there would not be any issue concerning psychiatric prognosis. 40. Giving the Applicant full benefit of doubt, Dr Wong recommended sick leave for 6 months from the date of the Accident. The Applicant should have recovered by 11th April 2008 and should have been able to return to his previous job with no impairment of functioning and no loss of earning capacity on psychiatric ground from that day onwards. 41. Dr Wong warned that disclosure of the Report to Applicant may lead to “worsening” or “deterioration” of his pain and psychiatric symptoms because (a) the Applicant would want to convince others that he had been suffering from genuine physical and psychiatric symptoms, and (b) for the sake of the current litigation. Dr Wong expected the physical and psychiatric symptoms to subside some time after the closure of the current litigation, but whether it would indeed be so would be up to the Applicant. VIII. Discussion 42. The Applicant’s solicitors posed 5 questions to the put to the Experts for clarification, and I will discuss them in turn. (a) 1st question 43. Up to the present stage, the Respondent has not engaged any investigators to carry out covert surveillance against the Applicant. In any event, no surveillance report or video recording has been disclosed as part of the discoverable documents. 44. The Applicant’s solicitors wished to ask the Experts whether they had taken into account the absence of such surveillance report or video recording “to discredit [the Applicant]”. It was argued as follows :
45. First of all, there is simply no basis for any suggestion that surveillance report/recording “would have been obtained” by the Respondent in the present case. The Respondent has through its solicitors denied this. There is no duty or obligation on the part of the Respondent to obtain such surveillance report/recording. The Respondent is fully entitled, if it wishes, to stand on the available evidence for the purpose of trial without procuring covert surveillance evidence. Further, it does not necessarily follow from the absence of such evidence that the Applicant’s presentation of psychiatric symptoms is therefore genuine. Indeed, it is doubtful whether such inference can be drawn from the absence of such evidence alone. 46. Secondly, it is necessary to return to the basic principles of expert evidence. Expert witnesses are permitted to give opinion evidence, and they so do on the facts, matters and assumptions that are material to the opinions expressed. Such facts, matters and assumptions (other than from their own tests and examinations) should be proved in court by documentary evidence or evidence given by other witnesses. But as explained above, the proposed inference on the basis of lack of discovery of any surveillance report/recording alone is speculative and hence immaterial to the task of the Experts. Indeed, the validity of their opinion is likely to be diminished by taking into account such suggested inference. 47. Thirdly, the ultimate decision as to the veracity or otherwise of the Applicant is a question of fact for the court and not for the Experts. Whether he exaggerated his symptoms or whether he had genuine psychiatric disability is a finding of fact to be made by the trial judge on the basis of all the evidence presented to the court at trial. If there is any inference to be drawn on the factual evidence adduced before the court, then it is a matter for the trial judge as arbiter of fact and not for the Experts. 48. Fourthly, another fundamental precept of expert medical evidence is that the medical expert should draw attention to clinically relevant factors, eg any inconsistencies in the medical history obtained from the claimant and from the medical notes/records/reports, the extent of compliance and motivation in relation to medical treatment/rehabilitation, the results of physical or mental state examination, the presence and extent of any objective or psychiatric impairment. The psychiatric expert witness can also properly comment on the nature or absence of any recognisable psychiatric disorder or illness by using recognised diagnostic criteria or classifications, but it is not for him to “prove” whether the claimant is or is not entitled to compensation or whether the claimant is lying or not. This is a matter for the trial judge as tribunal of fact. 49. Here, the Experts did adhere to the above principles. In the Report, Dr Law recognised that depressed mood might intensify the feeling and intensity of pain, but took into account the approximate answers given by the Applicant during the mental state examination and the absence of any brain injury (and hence significant impairment of cognitive functions) in opining that the Applicant exaggerated his complaints (see paragraph 33 above). Whilst he fairly deferred assessment of the Applicant’s physical disabilities to the orthopaedists, Dr Law pointed out that the medical reports showed that the Applicant only suffered soft tissue injury and that the severity of his reactive mood disturbance should be proportional to the physical suffering. 50. Likewise, Dr Wong acknowledged that pain was a common concomitant of psychiatric disorders, but where psychiatric symptoms were said to be caused by back pain, treatment and improvement/ recovery in relation to the latter should lead to improvement/recovery for the former. 51. In my view, the Experts rightly confined themselves to clinical issues such as diagnosis/absence of any psychiatric disorder, aetiology and degree of impairment, and properly refrained from overstepping into the question of veracity of the Applicant, which question is for the trial judge to decide. 52. In my view, there is no basis for putting the question in paragraph 44 above to the Experts. (b) 2nd question 53. The Applicant’s solicitors wished to ask Dr Law to comment on Dr Wong’s diagnosis of the “sick role”, and then ask Dr Wong to comment on that if necessary. 54. In the Report, Dr Wong explained that an “abnormal sick role” meant a perpetuation of the role of illness that could not be explained by genuine physical or psychiatric disorders. In this sense, “abnormal sick role” is not a diagnosis as such for it is not a true psychiatric disorder but a conclusion that there is no psychiatric disorder. 55. Dr Wong in concluding that the Applicant was adopting an “abnormal sick role” made reference to the approximate answers given by the Applicant during the mental state examination, which were suggestive of attempts by the Applicant to convince others of his physical/psychiatric symptoms for the sake of the current litigation. 56. In fact, Dr Law has already expressed his views on these very matters in the Report. First, Dr Law agreed that the Applicant gave approximate answers during the mental state examination. Indeed, the Experts were in agreement as to the nature and effect of such approximate answers (see paragraph 31 above). Secondly, Dr Law regarded such approximate answers and the absence of brain injury (and hence significant cognitive impairment) as relevant indicators of the phenomenon of exaggeration of complaints by the Applicant. Thirdly, Dr Law agreed that the Applicant’s psychiatric complaints should be proportional to the physical problem and therefore should be mild. Fourthly, Dr Law expressly addressed the impact of the present litigation on the Applicant’s complaints. He opined that the litigation served as “a significant maintaining factor and stressor in his mood turmoil” and that “[early] closure of the litigation will remove an important perpetuating factor to main a sick role ……” (my emphasis) (see paragraph 34 above). 57. In my view, no further clarification is required from the Experts given the clarity of their opinion on the issue of “sick role”. (c) 3rd question 58. The Applicant’s solicitors pointed out the Report recorded that the Applicant was fearful of returning to the school. They wanted to ask the Experts on their opinion from a psychiatric point of view as to whether the Applicant should resume work at the same school or seek employment at another school even if he were fit or would be fit to resume the same job. 59. To put the matter in the proper perspective, it was the Applicant who told the Experts that he was fearful of returning to the school (see paragraph 17 of the Report). But when the Experts explored with him his future plan and his wish to work again, he told the Experts that “he would go back to his job in the school if his back pain resolved” (see paragraph 36 of the Report). This suggests that if the Applicant is fit to resume the same job he is quite prepared to “go back to his job in the school”. The Applicant’s veracity as to his assertions is a matter for the trial judge. In my view, there is no need to seek further clarification from the Experts. (d) 4th question 60. The Applicant’s solicitors wished to ask the Experts about the Applicant’s chances of getting employment in future given that he suffered some psychiatric illness as a result of the Accident. The questions posed are :
61. In my view, such questions are wholly inappropriate for the Experts. I do not need to reiterate the trite rule of expert evidence that expert witnesses are only allowed to give opinion on matters within their areas of expertise in order to furnish scientific or technical (and in this case medical) information likely to be outside the experience and knowledge of the judge or jury. 62. Psychiatric or indeed other medical experts are not allowed to address on the factual question of the likelihood or otherwise of employers in the employment market employing persons with particular injuries and/or disabilities. The issue of employability of the claimant by employers in the job market depends not only on clinical opinion as to his physical or mental capability in undertaking a particular job given its nature or scope of duties, but also on a host of other factual matters (eg the motivation, willingness and/or efforts of the claimant in finding work) that are fully within the purview of the trial judge. To put the questions as posed to the Experts is to risk letting them usurp the function of the trial judge as fact-finder. The court should be alert to ensure that judges and not experts are to decide cases. (e) 5th question 63. The Applicant’s solicitors noted that Dr Wong considered there might be adverse reaction of the Applicant on being told of the contents of the Report, so they wished to ask the Experts to advise whether the whole Report or a summary thereof with Chinese translation should be given to the Applicant. 64. Again, the question posed must be placed in the proper context. According to the Report, Dr Wong anticipated (although it remains to be seen whether) the Applicant would react adversely if he were informed of the contents of the Report, but opined that any such “worsening” or “deterioration” of the pain and psychiatric complaints was due to an “abnormal sick role” and not psychiatric disorder. Indeed, he further opined that the Applicant no longer suffered from any adjustment disorder with depressed mood. There is therefore no question of not revealing the contents of the Report to the Applicant for clinical or therapeutic reasons that are deserving of further opinion from the Experts. Indeed, Dr Law did not express any reservation in respect of disclosing the Report to the Applicant. I do not allow the proposed question to be put to the Experts. X. Conclusion 65. In light of the aforesaid discussion, I refuse leave for the Applicant to seek supplemental psychiatric expert opinion from the Experts. I am satisfied that the trial judge can sufficiently deal with matter on the existing Report and evidence from the Applicant and his wife. 66. The previous directions granted at the Direction Hearing on 19th February 2009 do stand, and the parties are reminded to comply with paragraphs 73 and 75 of Practice Direction 18.2 in respect of the Direction Hearing at 11:30am on 14th August 2009. 67. Since both Experts are of the view that early closure of the present litigation will be of benefit to the Applicant, and the joint orthopaedic expert report will be ready shortly, the court expects the present case to be set down for trial as soon as possible. 68. I further grant a costs order nisi that the Applicant do pay to the Respondent costs of the application for supplemental psychiatric expert opinion to be taxed if not agreed. There be legal aid taxation of the Applicant’s own costs.
Representation: Messrs Burke & Co for the Applicant. Messrs Tsang, Chan & Wong for the Respondent. |
Other judgments that cite this case