You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Expert Directions’ tag.
This is a pre-trial review hearing of an employee’s compensation claim made by the Applicant against the Respondents. Deputy Judge Lee had to give expert directions and decide whether he should nominate a single joint expert in light of the fact that (1) both parties were unrepresented; (2) the court had not granted leave to adduce expert evidence; and (3) the three statements of opinion which the Applicant obtained from his proposed expert were in “flagrant breach” of the rules and the practice directions in the Post-Civil Justice Reform regime.
In disposing of the hearing, Deputy Judge Lee reviewed the rules governing the obtaining of expert evidence. He held that unless the Applicant filed and served documents such that his proposed expert’s statements would comply with the rules, the statements would be expunged from the court’s file and the Applicant would be unable to adduce further expert evidence at trial.
Hong Kong Dispute Resolution Bulletin: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell HKDRB, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2010] 12 HKDRB.
This case involved an application for variation of a costs order made by Madam Registrar Queeny Au-Yeung in respect of an earlier application for directions to adduce expert evidence on liability. In her judgment, Madam Registrar Queeny Au-Yeung clarified her comments on how to approach expert directions following the Civil Justice Reform (“CJR”) made in an earlier decision (see [2009] HKEC 1201 of [2009] 10 CJRA ). She held that whenever expert directions are sought, the parties must consider the questions set out in Section E of the timetabling questionnaire, irrespective of whether the application was made by way of a case management summons or by way of a summons for expert directions. Nonetheless, Madam Registrar Queeny Au-Yeung held that the parties could not be blamed for what they did in this case, because “there has been no previous decision on how to approach expert directions under CJR“.
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 14 CJRA.
