Ali Muhammad Razzaq v Hung Tai Engineer Co Ltd [2025] 3 HKC 129, [2025] HKDC 125 (Ashok K. Sakhrani)
Ashok K. Sakhrani represented the plaintiff in Ali Muhammad Razzaq v Hung Tai Engineer Co Ltd [2025] 3 HKC 129, [2025] HKDC 125.
The plaintiff suffered injuries due to a fall during which his buttock hit on a bucket and then he landed on the ground on his left side. He was diagnosed to have suffered neck and back sprain injuries. The plaintiff was assessed by a single joint expert (SJE), who produced a report. The plaintiff made requests for clarification of the SJE’s report to the defendants, who refused the requests. The parties then sent a joint letter to the District Court setting out their positions and arguments. A Master of the District Court refused the plaintiff’s requests for clarification of the SJE’s report on five issues. The plaintiff appealed to a judge in chambers out of time.
Held, allowing the appeal in part, that:
(1) The plaintiff had not followed the proper procedure, where the parties had failed to come to consensus regarding seeking clarification of medical expert evidence, to make an application by way of summons to have the matter properly argued and dealt with before the PI Master. Chan Yuet Keung v Harmony (International) Knitting Factory Ltd [2011] 1 HKC 463; [2010] 5 HKLRD 599 followed (para 17).
(2) There was no delay on the part of the plaintiff in making the requests. The parties had filed the revised statement of damages and answer within reasonable time after receipt of the SJE report and thereafter held mediation to explore the possibility of settlement. In the hope of settlement, it would be reasonable for the plaintiff to withhold making an application for seeking clarification on the SJE report and not incurring unnecessary costs shortly before mediation took place (para 25).
(3) Extension of time was granted for the plaintiff to proceed with the appeal. The delay of two months in lodging the appeal could not be said to be substantial. In any event, the fact that the plaintiff wrote to the court to seek clarification of the Master’s order and the Master taking time to reply the plaintiff’s request contributed to the delay. The defendant was not able to show how the delay would impact on costs or availability of witnesses such that it would be unjust to allow the plaintiff to proceed with the appeal. Postwell Ltd v Cheng Kap Sang [2004] 2 HKLRD 355; [2003] HKCU 1209 applied (paras 24-32).
(4) Leave should be granted for parties to seek jointly further expert evidence where clarification, explanation or elaboration was required on any areas of the SJE report to ensure that all legitimate relevant medical issues were properly explored and canvassed. This would help narrow down the issues and assist the Court in understanding the medical issues and evidence and coming to a fair result. But first, the Court would have to be satisfied that there was something in the concerned paragraphs of the medical expert report that contained internal consistencies, lacked reasons or logic making it difficult to understand or causing confusion, and required clarification (paras 39-40).
(5) Having examined each of the clarifications sought, it was considered that the first, the third, the fourth and the fifth clarifications were either unnecessary or related to issues of fact and matters for the Court to determine (paras 42-73).
[The above is excerpted from the headnote to the report in HKC.]
