CHEUNG KI LAM 對 CHOI TAK TAI 及另一人

CHEUNG KI LAM 對 CHOI TAK TAI 及另一人

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other ground justifying an appeal: the proposed grounds were primarily disagreement with the trial judge's factual and quantum findings, re-argument of matters already considered, and did not show any plain error, misapprehension or omission of critical evidence by the trial judge; accordingly leave was denied and costs were awarded to the second defendant (summary assessment HKD 38,854).

Citation
[2025] HKDC 399
Parties
Plaintiff: CHEUNG KI LAM; First Defendant: CHOI TAK TAI; Second Defendant: HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED (in liquidation)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 March 2025
Case Number
DCPI2504/2019
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Civil Damages / Application for Leave to Appeal (post Judgment)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Assault, Vicarious Liability, Employer Negligence, Compensation Set Off, Leave to Appeal Standards, Costs Assessment
Source Language
CH
Tort Contract Civil Procedure Employment/workers' Compensation Assault Vicarious Liability Employer Negligence Compensation Set Off +2 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHEUNG KI LAM

Plaintiff

CHOI TAK TAI

First Defendant

HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED (in liquidation)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Civil Damages / Application for Leave to Appeal (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has a reasonable prospect of success on appeal such that leave should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's factual findings (liability and quantum) were plainly wrong
  3. 3 Whether employer (second defendant) reasonably could foresee risk of assault and thus be liable in contract or negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other ground justifying an appeal: the proposed grounds were primarily disagreement with the trial judge's factual and quantum findings, re-argument of matters already considered, and did not show any plain error, misapprehension or omission of critical evidence by the trial judge; accordingly leave was denied and costs were awarded to the second defendant (summary assessment HKD 38,854).

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff must immediately pay the second defendant costs of the summons, assessed on summary assessment at HKD 38,854.00.