Learn more about our comprehensive legal services.
Advising our clients on different opportunities and challenges of the industry.
News & Insights
In Perpetual Wealth (Hong Kong) Ltd v Be Solutions Company Ltd, HCA 1905/2018, the Court emphasised that for construction cases, the starting point for expert directions is that single joint expert (SJE) evidence is preferred, as it assists to narrow the scope of the issues in dispute, shortens the trial, facilitates settlement of issues and often leads to global settlement of the action. It also emphasised the importance of parties properly formulating the questions to be answered by the experts and identifying experts with the necessary expertise to answer the questions.
The action concerned a dispute arising out of a renovation contract. The Plaintiff alleged that marble supplied by the Defendant was defective and that the Defendant had made misrepresentations about its quality and price/value and had breached implied terms of the contract, that the marble to be installed and supplied would correspond to the sample approved by the Plaintiff, and/or would be of merchantable quality.
The Court gave the parties leave to adduce expert evidence on defects and quantum of damages and made a direction for them to confer and agree on SJEs to be appointed. The parties were unable to agree on the identity of the SJEs and the Plaintiff maintained that leave should be granted to both parties to call separate experts of their own on the issue of liability. Written submissions on the question of whether there should be separate or joint experts, and the identity of the experts, were filed, and a hearing fixed for the parties to be heard.
At the hearing, the Court made a number of observations on the subject of expert evidence. It indicated that having considered the nature of the dispute on the alleged defects in the marble, the Court was prepared to grant the parties leave to appoint separate experts on the issue, but said there was no justification for separate experts to be called on quantum. The Court said that the parties should confer and agree on the identity of a SJE on quantum, and confirm the identities of separate experts on defects if a SJE could not be agreed.
The Court expressed reservations as to the expertise of the experts proposed by the parties and sought clarification on the essence of the Plaintiff’s claim as to the alleged defects, whether they related to defects in installation of the works, or if they related to defects in the pattern or colouring of the marble pieces. The Court also expressed queries and concerns about the questions which the parties had framed for the experts.
The Court made the following comments about expert evidence:
Subscribe to Publications
Sign up for our regular updates covering the latest legal developments, regulations and case law.
For media enquiries please contact us at email@example.com.
Tel: +852 2825 9211