Read the full judgment text of CACV 000010/1991 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 3 May 1991 before Silke VP, Power JA, Macdougall JA.
Civil procedure – interlocutory appeal – admissibility of evidence – negligence – occupier's liability – Crown land – Supreme Court Ordinance (Cap 4) ss.13, 14, 15 – Rules of the Supreme Court O.59 r.11(2) – Plaintiff suffered quadriplegic injuries when planks fell on him at a wood yard situated on Crown land in October 1984 – Action brought against the wood yard occupiers in negligence and against the Crown (Attorney General) for breach of duty of care – Trial judge upheld defendants' objection to evidence from a medical social worker, Mrs. Yung, concerning her visits to the site on 3 November 1984 and later, on the ground that the visit was not sufficiently proximate in time to the accident – Plaintiff sought to appeal by way of interlocutory appeal during the adjourned trial – Whether the trial judge's ruling on admissibility amounted to an 'order' from which an appeal as of right would lie under sections 13 and 14 of the Supreme Court Ordinance – Held, appeal not competent – Word 'order' not defined in the Supreme Court Ordinance or Rules of the Supreme Court – Not every ruling made in the course of a trial can be elevated to the status of an 'order' – English O.59, r.1A(2)(a) definition not imported – Following Kwok Man Chan v. Hang Tat Heating (CACV 164/1990) – Mrs. Yung's evidence was relevant to only one of many issues and could not be described as 'decisive' or 'substantial or crucial' – Wrongful admission or rejection of evidence is not by itself a ground for a new trial under O.59, r.11(2) – Appeal struck out; order nisi that there be no order for costs – Court noted the trial judge may wish to reconsider his ruling in light of the concession in the 1st and 2nd defendants' Respondent's Notice that Mrs Yung should have been permitted to testify as to the absence of warning signs on 3 November 1984.
Legal issues: Whether a trial judge's ruling on the admissibility of evidence constitutes an 'order' giving rise to an appeal as of right
Outcome: Appeal struck out as not competent; ruling on admissibility held not to be an 'order' from which an appeal as of right would lie