These proceedings arose as a result of a road traffic accident when the Defendant’s light goods vehicle collided with a private car in which the Plaintiff was a front seat passenger. It was alleged that the Plaintiff suffered loss of consciousness after her head struck the windscreen of her vehicle. Interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed was entered shortly after the proceedings were commenced.

After the case was set down for hearing, the Defendant applied for leave for the parties to obtain a supplemental joint psychological report from the parties’ experts to address the surveillance reports which sought to undermine the Plaintiff’s credibility. Leave was also sought to adduce the expert evidence contained in the supplemental report at the assessment of damages in the action.

After forming the view that the benefit to the court of the additional expert evidence outweighed the cost considerations, the Honourable Mr Justice Bharwaney granted the Defendant’s application with costs to follow the event.

In passing, the Court sounded a caution to practitioners that the time was fast approaching when interlocutory applications made after setting down were unlikely to be acceded to, absent very cogent reasons or exceptional circumstances, even if granting them would not affect milestone dates.

Hong Kong Dispute Resolution Bulletin – incorporating CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell HKDRB, produced in association with Clifford Chance.

This article is available in [2010] 17 HKDRB.

Advertisement