傷者求償，文件與現場勘驗範圍？？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：NG LAI FAN, FANNY v THE HONG KONG GOLF CLUB - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：司法常務官陳志雄 (Registrar C. Chan) - 判決日期：2006年8月2日 ### 案情摘要 本案為一宗人身傷害訴訟，原告受僱於被告香港哥爾夫球會擔任侍應。原告聲稱於2002年6月4日工作期間，奉指示搬運裝有污穢桌布的布袋到洗衣房。在搬運過程中，她於一條僅供員工使用的濕滑樓梯上，因踩到一塊損壞的瓷磚而跌倒，導致腰背及左腿受傷。原告因此向法院申請命令，要求被告出示培訓手冊、允許檢查被告處所，以及提供布袋樣本。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議點在於原告就其人身傷害申索，要求被告披露文件及進行實地檢查的申請是否合理。被告反對披露整份培訓手冊，認為應限於相關摘錄以節省成本；被告亦反對處所檢查的條款過於廣泛和模糊。原告則認為整份培訓手冊均具關聯性，且其並非「漁翁撒網」式索取證據，並主張有權檢查處所及獲取布袋樣本作為證據。 ### 判決理由 司法常務官裁定原告的申請合理。關於培訓手冊，法庭認為被告既然已將其作為證據引入，原告便有權審閱其完整內容，以了解培訓的實施情況，並非「漁翁撒網」式索取證據。關於處所檢查，法庭認為被告的反對理由缺乏實質內容，僅是條款過於廣泛的問題，可由雙方協商解決。關於布袋樣本，法庭認為其作為證據對案件裁決有用。因此，法庭批准了原告的所有申請。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法庭批准原告的所有申請。被告須於14天內出示完整的培訓手冊，並提供布袋樣本。關於處所檢查，雙方須於14天內協商檢查時間及範圍，若未能達成協議則由司法常務官決定。本申請的訟費判予原告，並指示被告在14天內提交反對訟費清單的意見。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調在人身傷害案件中，若被告方已將某文件引入作為證據，原告方有權查閱該文件的完整內容，而非僅限於摘錄。此外，判決亦重申了原告方在合理情況下，有權檢查涉事處所及獲取相關實物證據，以協助其舉證。 --- ### 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: NG LAI FAN, FANNY v THE HONG KONG GOLF CLUB - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Registrar C. Chan - Date of Judgment: 2 August 2006 ### Factual Background This is a personal injury claim where the plaintiff, a waitress employed by the defendant, The Hong Kong Golf Club, alleged injury during her employment. On 4 June 2002, she was instructed to carry linen bags containing soiled tablecloths to the laundry room. While descending a slippery staff-only staircase, she tripped on a damaged tile and fell, sustaining injuries to her lower back and left leg. The plaintiff applied to the court for orders compelling the defendant to produce a training manual, allow inspection of the premises, and provide a sample of the linen bag. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues revolved around the plaintiff's application for discovery of documents and inspection of premises in her personal injury claim. The defendant objected to producing the entire training manual, arguing that only relevant extracts should be provided to save costs, and that the terms for premises inspection were too broad and vague. The plaintiff contended that the entire manual was relevant and she was not on a "fishing expedition," asserting her right to inspect the premises and obtain a linen bag sample as evidence. ### Ratio Decidendi The Registrar ruled in favour of the plaintiff's application. Regarding the training manual, the court held that since the defendant had introduced it as evidence, the plaintiff was entitled to examine its full context to understand how training was conducted, and was not merely "fishing for evidence." For premises inspection, the court found the defendant's objection to be without substance, noting that the scope could be agreed upon by the parties. The court also deemed the sample linen bag useful as evidence for deciding the case. All applications were therefore granted. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court granted all of the plaintiff's applications. The defendant was ordered to produce the complete training manual and a sample linen bag within 14 days. For premises inspection, the parties were to agree on the time and scope within 14 days, failing which the Registrar would decide. Costs of the application were awarded to the plaintiff, with directions for the defendant to file objections to the plaintiff's bill of costs within 14 days. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights that in personal injury cases, if a defendant introduces a document as evidence, the plaintiff is entitled to full discovery of that document, not just extracts. It also reaffirms the plaintiff's right to inspect the relevant premises and obtain physical evidence under reasonable circumstances to support their case. --- ### 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.