WAI CHUN INCORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER v. 羅民基

WAI CHUN INCORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER v. 羅民基

The court held the defendant owed a duty of care to both the employer (1st plaintiff) and to the car owner (2nd plaintiff); there was no bailment relationship. The plaintiffs failed to prove loss of the first car was caused by the defendant but proved breach of duty in respect of the second car where the defendant left the key unattended, causally contributing to its loss. Theft by third parties did not break the chain of causation because theft was a foreseeable consequence of negligent loss or insecure custody of keys. Damages awarded were limited to proven loss (cost of new security and key for 2nd car less statutory set-off).

Citation
WAI CHUN INCORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER v. 羅民基
Parties
Plaintiff (employer): 1st plaintiff; Plaintiff (owner of Vehicles): 2nd plaintiff; Defendant (employee/driver): defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 September 2015
Case Number
DCCJ1980/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Claim for Negligence and Alternative Claim for Bailment; Related Employment and Evidential Issues / Trial Judgment (district Court)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs in part. Defendant liable for proven loss in respect of 2nd car; other claims dismissed or not proven.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Novus Actus Interveniens, Conversion, Damages, Admissibility of Prior Convictions, Amendment of Pleadings, Foreign Penal Law
Source Language
EN
Torts Employment Law Bailment Civil Procedure Evidence Duty of Care Breach of Duty Novus Actus Interveniens +5 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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

1st plaintiff

Plaintiff (employer)

2nd plaintiff

Plaintiff (owner of Vehicles)

defendant

Defendant (employee/driver)

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort Claim for Negligence and Alternative Claim for Bailment; Related Employment and Evidential Issues / Trial Judgment (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant owed common law duty of care to 1st plaintiff (employer)
  2. 2 Whether defendant owed common law duty of care to 2nd plaintiff (owner)
  3. 3 Whether bailment existed between defendant and 2nd plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the defendant owed a duty of care to both the employer (1st plaintiff) and to the car owner (2nd plaintiff); there was no bailment relationship. The plaintiffs failed to prove loss of the first car was caused by the defendant but proved breach of duty in respect of the second car where the defendant left the key unattended, causally contributing to its loss. Theft by third parties did not break the chain of causation because theft was a foreseeable consequence of negligent loss or insecure custody of keys. Damages awarded were limited to proven loss (cost of new security and key for 2nd car less statutory set-off).

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs in part. Defendant liable for proven loss in respect of 2nd car; other claims dismissed or not proven.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay plaintiffs HK$5,595.20
  • Interest on HK$5,595.20 at the judgment rate from date of writ until payment