HARBOUR FRONT INVESTMENTS LTD. v. LOCK KWOK LEUNG AND OTHERS

HARBOUR FRONT INVESTMENTS LTD. v. LOCK KWOK LEUNG AND OTHERS

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the Adjudicator's factual findings that the 1st and 2nd Defendants negligently cut into the Claimant's lane (caused by the 3rd Defendant cutting into the 2nd Defendant's lane), the rejection of contributory negligence by the Claimant, the admissibility and sufficiency of the 2nd Defendant's evidence, and the application of authority that repair costs are not discounted for betterment together provide no arguable ground of appeal.

Citation
HARBOUR FRONT INVESTMENTS LTD. v. LOCK KWOK LEUNG AND OTHERS
Parties
Claimant: Harbour Front Investments Limited; 1st Defendant: Lock Kwok Leung; 2nd Defendant: Chan Ching Fat; 3rd Defendant: Kok Po Wah
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 February 2003
Case Number
HCSA68/2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Causation, Evidence Admissibility, Quantum of Damages, Betterment
Source Language
EN
Tort Negligence Civil Procedure Motor Vehicle Law Contributory Negligence Causation Evidence Admissibility Quantum of Damages +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harbour Front Investments Limited

Claimant

Lock Kwok Leung

1st Defendant

Chan Ching Fat

2nd Defendant

Kok Po Wah

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator failed to consider contributory negligence of the Claimant
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator failed to consider contributory negligence of the 2nd Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the Adjudicator's factual findings that the 1st and 2nd Defendants negligently cut into the Claimant's lane (caused by the 3rd Defendant cutting into the 2nd Defendant's lane), the rejection of contributory negligence by the Claimant, the admissibility and sufficiency of the 2nd Defendant's evidence, and the application of authority that repair costs are not discounted for betterment together provide no arguable ground of appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed.