遲延申請傳召專家證據是否獲准？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Fung Chun Man v Hospital Authority and another - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Hon Bharwaney J - 判決日期：2011年6月24日 ### 案情摘要 原告就其出生時的醫療疏忽索償，指控其於1990年7月因錯誤診斷接受不必要手術，導致心臟出現房室中隔缺損 (atrial septal defect, ASD)。原告聲稱此缺損阻礙其正常成長與發展，並導致終身殘疾。案件已排期於2011年9月開審，原告在開審前申請傳召臨床心理學家提供專家證據，以支持其未來收入損失及痛苦、損害和損失 (PSLA) 的賠償申索。被告方反對此申請，認為專家意見具爭議性且申請過遲。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於法庭是否應批准原告在案件已排期審訊且申請延遲的情況下，傳召臨床心理學家提供專家證據。原告主張該證據對於評估其因醫療疏忽造成的心理影響及相關賠償至關重要。被告方則認為該證據具爭議性，且遲來的申請將導致審訊延誤及成本增加，並質疑心理問題的成因。 ### 判決理由 法庭根據民事司法改革 (Civil Justice Reform, CJR) 的潛在目標，即確保訴訟的成本效益、迅速處理、相稱性及公平性，審視了傳召專家證據的申請。法庭強調，即使專家證據屬於公認領域且對解決爭議有幫助，仍需考慮申請是否過遲、對審訊的潛在干擾以及對其他方的偏見。本案中，法庭認為原告的申請過遲，且未能提供充分解釋，儘管該證據對解決爭議有幫助且成本相稱，但其潛在的審訊延誤和爭議性，導致法庭拒絕了該申請。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例，包括 Liddell v Middleton [1996] PIQR 36，強調對專家證據的限制；Wong Hin Pui v Mok Ying Kit and anor. HCPI763/1997，批評過度使用職業治療師報告；Mok King Sun v Turn Round Company Limited HCPI865/2007，闡述聯合專家方法的優點；Barings PLC v Coopers & Lybrand (No.2) [2001] Lloyds Report Bank 85 及 Mann v Messrs. Chetty & Patel (a firm) [2000] EWCA CIV 267，確立了評估專家證據必要性的準則；Wong Hoi Fung v. American Assurance Co. (Bermuda) Ltd. [2002] 3 HKLRD 507，要求專家證據必須合理地解決爭議；以及 Baron v. Lovell [2000] PIQR P20，指出遲交證據會延誤審訊。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回了原告傳召臨床心理學家提供專家證據的申請，並判被告方獲得本次申請的訟費。原告的自身訟費將根據法律援助規例 (Legal Aid Regulations) 評定。法庭強調，儘管沒有該專家意見，法庭仍能自行評估原告的性格及其對未來職業前景的影響。 ### 判決啟示 法庭對原告在審訊前夕提交一份已簽署聲明並附有真實性聲明的「草擬臨床心理學報告」表示不滿，認為其違反了法庭命令及實務指示。法庭指出，若原告能及早申請並僅依賴初步意見，法庭或會考慮委任單一聯合專家，以避免審訊延誤。這突顯了遵守民事司法改革原則和實務指示的重要性，尤其是在專家證據的委任和時機方面。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: Fung Chun Man v Hospital Authority and another - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Bharwaney J - Date of Judgment: 24 June 2011 ### Factual Background The plaintiff claimed damages for medical negligence at birth, alleging that a misdiagnosis in July 1990 led to unnecessary surgery, resulting in an atrial septal defect (ASD). The plaintiff contended that this defect stunted his normal growth and development, causing lifelong disabilities. With the trial scheduled for September 2011, the plaintiff applied to adduce expert evidence from a clinical psychologist to support claims for future loss of earnings and pain, suffering and loss of amenities (PSLA). The defendants opposed the application, arguing the expert opinion was contentious and the application was made too late. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the court should grant leave for the plaintiff to adduce expert evidence from a clinical psychologist, given that the case was already set down for trial and the application was made late. The plaintiff argued the evidence was crucial for assessing the psychological impact of the alleged medical negligence and related damages. The defendants contended the evidence was contentious, the late application would cause trial delays and increased costs, and questioned the causation of the psychological issues. ### Ratio Decidendi The court considered the application for expert evidence within the ambit of the Civil Justice Reform (CJR) objectives: cost-effectiveness, expedition, proportionality, and fairness. The court emphasized that even if expert evidence is from a recognized discipline and helpful to resolving issues, factors like lateness, potential disruption to trial, and prejudice to other parties must be weighed. In this case, the court found the plaintiff's application to be significantly late with no good explanation. Despite the evidence being potentially helpful and proportionate in cost, the potential for trial derailment and contention led the court to dismiss the application. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited Liddell v Middleton [1996] PIQR 36, highlighting the clampdown on expert evidence; Wong Hin Pui v Mok Ying Kit and anor. HCPI763/1997, criticizing excessive use of occupational therapist reports; Mok King Sun v Turn Round Company Limited HCPI865/2007, outlining the virtues of a joint approach for experts; Barings PLC v Coopers & Lybrand (No.2) [2001] Lloyds Report Bank 85 and Mann v Messrs. Chetty & Patel (a firm) [2000] EWCA CIV 267, establishing criteria for admitting expert evidence; Wong Hoi Fung v. American Assurance Co. (Bermuda) Ltd. [2002] 3 HKLRD 507, requiring expert evidence to be reasonably necessary; and Baron v. Lovell [2000] PIQR P20, on the consequences of late evidence. ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for leave to adduce expert evidence from a clinical psychologist. Costs of the application were awarded to the defendants. The plaintiff's own costs were directed to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations. The court noted that it could still assess the plaintiff's personality and its impact on future career prospects without the specific expert opinion. ### Key Takeaways The court expressed dissatisfaction with the plaintiff's submission of a "Draft Clinical Psychological Report" that was in fact a full, signed report with a statement of truth, submitted less than a week before the hearing and in breach of court orders and practice directions. The court indicated that an earlier, more appropriate application, perhaps for a single joint expert based on preliminary opinions, might have been granted without disrupting trial dates. This highlights the critical importance of adhering to CJR principles and practice directions regarding the timing and commissioning of expert evidence. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.