GRACE CHIN AND ANOTHER v. KATE RICHDALE AND ANOTHER

GRACE CHIN AND ANOTHER v. KATE RICHDALE AND ANOTHER

Plaintiffs failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the account of how Sha-sha was killed and failed to establish that the defendants' dogs had a dangerous propensity or that defendants were negligent, in nuisance or in breach of statutory duty; further, the psychiatric injuries claimed did not meet DSM-IV/ICD-10 criteria for PTSD causally linked to the defendants' conduct and in any event would be too remote; therefore the action was dismissed.

Citation
GRACE CHIN AND ANOTHER v. KATE RICHDALE AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Grace Chin; 2nd Plaintiff: Eugene Oh; 1st Defendant: Kate Richdale; 2nd Defendant: Yan Su Zher
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 August 2005
Case Number
HCPI1187/2000
Procedural Posture
High Court Personal Injuries Action (dog Attack) / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Action dismissed; judgment for the defendants
Legal Topics
Dog Attack/killing of Pet, Scienter (strict Liability for Animals), PTSD and Psychiatric Causation, Credibility and Evidence Assessment, Remoteness of Damage, Costs
Source Language
EN
Tort Negligence Nuisance Animal Liability Psychiatric Injury Civil Procedure Dog Attack/killing of Pet Scienter (strict Liability for Animals) +4 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace Chin

1st Plaintiff

Eugene Oh

2nd Plaintiff

Kate Richdale

1st Defendant

Yan Su Zher

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Personal Injuries Action (dog Attack) / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants' dogs had a dangerous propensity or scienter
  2. 2 Whether defendants were negligent or in nuisance or in breach of statutory duty
  3. 3 Causation and factual proof of how the dog Sha-sha was killed

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the account of how Sha-sha was killed and failed to establish that the defendants' dogs had a dangerous propensity or that defendants were negligent, in nuisance or in breach of statutory duty; further, the psychiatric injuries claimed did not meet DSM-IV/ICD-10 criteria for PTSD causally linked to the defendants' conduct and in any event would be too remote; therefore the action was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; judgment for the defendants

Orders

  • Judgment for the defendants
  • Defendants entitled to costs to be taxed on party and party basis (order nisi)