This update follows the High Court’s recent endorsement of single joint experts (“SJEs”) in Chen Muchao v Eagle Sun Engineering Ltd & Anson Engineering Consultant Ltd [2025] HKCFI 2688, where Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Li advocated for the adoption of SJEs in personal injury litigation11. In the latest development, the High Court’s Personal Injury Judge, Hon Mr Justice Simon Leung, reinforced and operationalised this approach in Tamang Dhirendra v Toko Construction & Machinery Ltd & China Harbour Engineering Co Ltd [2025] HKCFI 2037. The Court not only endorsed the use of SJEs but also issued a structured framework for their implementation. Background The plaintiff, a rebar fixer, claimed to have sustained back injuries while manually transporting a metal rebar at a construction site. The parties agreed on the need for orthopaedic expert evidence but disagreed on whether it should be from an SJE or joint examination by separate experts. Judge Leung ruled in favour of appointing an SJE, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments that the injuries were complex or controversial enough to justify separate experts. The Court found that the medical records and imaging did not indicate sufficient complexity and emphasised that speculative dissatisfaction with an SJE’s opinion was not a valid reason to avoid the approach. Key developments Judge Leung confirmed that both the High Court and District Court have begun issuing standardised directions for the use of SJEs in personal injury cases. At paragraph 52, he stated: “The court in Chen Muchao v Eagle Sun Engineering Limited & Anor [2025] HKCFI 2688… advocated that the court and the legal practitioners should now seriously consider appointing single joint expert instead of separate experts at an early stage of proceedings in personal injuries in the High Court.” He added that both levels of court “have in fact already started giving directions” since late March 2025. The judgment also includes a template of directions for appointing SJEs covering timelines, expert selection, joint instructions and compliance protocols. Important caveats: No presumption of SJE While the Court strongly encourages the use of SJEs, Judge Leung clarified that this is not a mandatory default. At paragraphs 22–25, he emphasised: The DC Protocol (used in the District Court) should not be misunderstood as a default rule in all cases The appointment of an SJE is discretionary, based on the specific circumstances of each case Parties who genuinely disagree with the use of an SJE are entitled to be heard, and the Court will assess the merits before making a direction His ruling stated: “Consideration of the appropriateness of appointing a single joint expert does not embark with a default position as a matter of case management.” “Parties in genuine disagreement… are entitled to expect to be heard. Judgment call is therefore still required.” Implications for insurers and corporates This shift has several practical benefits: Cost efficiency: Reduces duplication of expert fees and associated legal costs Streamlined process: Minimises delays caused by conflicting expert opinions Neutral evidence: Enhances credibility and objectivity of medical assessments Early settlement potential: Facilitates quicker resolution of claims However, insurers should also be aware that appointing an SJE is not automatic. Where high complexity or controversy exists, parties may still advocate for separate experts – subject to judicial discretion. Recommended action Review claims protocols to incorporate early consideration of an SJE Assess each case early to determine whether an SJE is appropriate, especially considering the value and complexity of the claim Educate claims teams on the benefits and limitations of the SJE approach Monitor litigation costs and timelines, which may improve under this framework Conclusion The High Court’s decisions in the Tamang Dhirendra case and Chen Muchao case mark a clear evolution in personal injury litigation. Yet, while the Court favours SJEs for efficiency and fairness, it remains open to hearing parties who believe their case warrants a different approach. To benefit from this procedural development, insurers and corporate defendants should adapt their strategies accordingly.

Preparing US-listed Chinese issuers exploring Hong Kong listing options With increasing regulatory uncertainties and geopolitical tensions in the US, many US-listed Chinese issuers are considering a Hong Kong listing (either primary or secondary) as a contingency plan. This legal update outlines key considerations, processes and strategic options for companies exploring a Hong Kong listing. 1. What options do I have? You have several options to establish a listing status in Hong Kong while maintaining or transitioning from your US listing: US primary listing + Hong Kong primary listing Alibaba (9988.HK, BABA.US) – upgraded from secondary to dual-primary listing on HKEX US primary listing + Hong Kong secondary listing JD.com (9618.HK, JD.US) – primary listing on NASDAQ and secondary listing on HKEX Delisting from the US & full migration to HKEX China Mobile (941.HK, CHL.US) – delisted from NYSE and now solely listed on HKEX What is HKEX promoting? The HKEX has streamlined its listing regime to facilitate US-listed Chinese issuers to achieve dual primary listing or secondary listing on the HKEX 2. How do you decide between a primary listing vs a secondary listing on HKEX? Key considerations include: Trading volume and liquidity Primary listings on HKEX typically attract more liquidity and investor interest Secondary listings may still rely on US trading volume Exemptions and waivers Primary listings must fully comply with the Hong Kong Listing Rules Secondary listings, subject to certain requirements, enjoy certain exemptions and waivers (e.g. retaining their existing WVR and/or VIE structures, and automatic waivers from corporate governance and disclosure requirements) Eligibility for key indices and stock connect Primary listings are eligible for Hang Seng Index and Southbound Stock Connect, enhancing access to mainland Chinese investors Secondary listings may face restrictions (e.g. not all secondary listed stocks are included in Stock Connect) 3. Do I need to raise funds? You can choose to list with or without fundraising: Listing with fundraising (IPO) XPeng (9868.HK, XPEV.US) – dual-primary listed on NYSE and HKEX, and raised new fund at its Hong Kong listing Listing without fundraising (Introduction) KE Holdings (2423.HK, BEKE.US) – dual-primary listed on NYSE and HKEX, and did not raise new fund at its Hong Kong listing 4. Do I need to amend the articles of association? Yes, HKEX requires certain corporate governance adjustments HKEX requires all issuers, including those seeking secondary listings, to demonstrate how domestic laws, rules and regulations to which they are subject, and their constitutional documents, in combination, provide shareholder protection under the Hong Kong Listing Rules 5. Can I use US GAAP or IFRS as auditing standard? Accountants’ reports in the prospectus must normally be drawn up in conformity with one of the following auditing standards: HKFRS or IFRS US GAAP may only be adopted by issuers that have, or seeking, dual-primary or secondary listing in both the US and on HKEX 6. Is VIE structure acceptable? US-listed Chinese issuers seeking dual-primary listings on HKEX are required to fully comply with the HKEX requirements for their existing VIE structure US-listed Chinese issuers (Grandfathered Greater China Issuer) are allowed to secondary list on HKEX with their existing VIE structure in place without full compliance with the requirements of HKEX 7. Do I need to file with CSRC again? Yes, US-listed Chinese issuers are generally required to comply with the filing regime of the CSRC when seeking a primary listing or a secondary listing on HKEX 8. What professionals do I need? Core professionals include: listing sponsor, legal advisors (as to Hong Kong laws, US laws & PRC laws) and reporting accountants 9. How long will it take? Secondary listing: ~4-6 months Primary listing: ~6-12 months 10. What are the basic eligibility requirements? Financial eligibility – HK$80M aggregate profit (3 years) + HK$500M market cap / HK$500M revenue + HK$100M positive cash flow (3 years) + HK$2B market cap / HK$500M revenue + HK$4B market cap Chapter 18A – Biotech companies with no revenue Chapter 18C – Specialist technology companies with or without revenue   Conclusion A Hong Kong listing provides a strategic safeguard against US delisting risks while unlocking access to Asia or China capital markets. Whether opting for a primary or a secondary listing, careful planning around compliance, fundraising and corporate structure is essential. Next steps Engage with legal, financial and listing advisors to assess the best path forward.

In a significant development for personal injury litigation in Hong Kong, the Court of First Instance has strongly advocated for the adoption of a single joint expert approach in High Court personal injuries actions. In the recent decision of Chen Muchao v Eagle Sun Engineering Limited & Anson Engineering Consultant Limited, Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Li highlighted the inefficiencies and drawbacks of the current practice of joint medical examination by one expert from each side and recommended that the High Court follow the District Court’s practice of appointing a single joint expert. This shift is intended to reduce costs, streamline proceedings and facilitate earlier settlement of cases. Background The case concerned the assessment of damages following a workplace accident in which the plaintiff, Mr Chen Muchao, sustained injuries after a scaffold collapse. Liability had already been established against the defendants, leaving the quantum of damages to be determined. The assessment process was marked by highly polarised medical evidence: both parties had appointed their own orthopaedic experts who produced a joint medical report but disagreed on almost every material issue, including the diagnosis, prognosis and the plaintiff’s ability to return to work. The Court found the plaintiff to be a malingerer who had grossly exaggerated his symptoms and ultimately preferred the evidence of the defendants’ expert. However, the case was notable not only for its findings on credibility and damages, but also for the Court’s critical commentary on the expert evidence process in personal injury litigation. Key judicial commentary on expert evidence At paragraph 74 of the judgment, Judge Andrew Li observed that the practice of each party appointing its own expert—even in straightforward orthopaedic cases—has become “unhelpful and counterproductive.” The Judge noted that this approach often leads to: Polarised and extreme expert opinions: Experts tend to align with the interests of the party instructing them, resulting in diametrically opposed views that are not always supported by objective medical evidence. Increased costs and delays: The need to resolve conflicting expert evidence prolongs proceedings and increases legal costs for all parties. Obstacles to early settlement: Divergent expert opinions make it more difficult for parties to reach agreement on quantum, even in cases where the medical issues are not complex. Judge Li expressly endorsed the District Court’s practice of appointing a single joint expert in personal injury cases, stating: “In my humble view, this case is a good example of why in most personal injuries cases, save for those complicated ones involved very severe and multi-faceted injuries, it is unhelpful and counterproductive to have opinions from two different experts in the same field when one single joint expert will do the job. I consider there are strong arguments to adopt the practice of the District Court by using single joint expert reports in personal injuries cases in the High Court as it would help to save costs and unnecessary arguments and facilitate early settlement of cases.” The Judge further suggested that both the Court and practitioners should “seriously consider appointing a single joint expert rather than two different experts in the same specialty at an early stage of the proceedings in personal injuries cases in the High Court.” Implications for employers, insurers and practitioners This judgment signals a potential shift in the procedural landscape for personal injury litigation in the High Court. The adoption of a single joint expert approach would have several practical implications: Cost efficiency: Reducing the number of experts involved will lower the costs of litigation for all parties. Streamlined proceedings: With a single, independent expert report, the scope for dispute over medical evidence is narrowed, expediting the resolution of claims. Greater objectivity: A jointly appointed expert is less likely to be perceived as a “hired gun,” enhancing the credibility of medical evidence before the Court. Facilitation of settlement: Agreement on the medical facts at an early stage increases the likelihood of early settlement, reducing the burden on the courts and the parties. While the Court stopped short of mandating the use of single joint experts in all cases, this decision is a clear call to action for both the judiciary and the legal profession to reconsider current practices in the interests of justice and efficiency. Conclusion and takeaway The High Court’s decision in Chen Muchao v Eagle Sun Engineering Limited & Anson Engineering Consultant Limited marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of personal injury litigation in Hong Kong. Parties and their advisers should be alert to the Court’s preference for single joint expert evidence and consider adopting this approach in appropriate cases. This development is likely to shape the conduct of personal injury claims in the High Court going forward, with a view to reducing costs, minimising unnecessary disputes and promoting the fair and efficient administration of justice.