HKSAR v. OTIS ELEVATOR CO (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. OTIS ELEVATOR CO (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

The Court held that Clause 4.5.1 imposes an obligation to check specified lift components in accordance with a manufacturers recommended schedule for the purpose of keeping the lift in good working order, that on the admitted facts no such checking occurred and the periodic examination could not possibly have detected the appalling state of the suspension rope if it had complied with the Code, and therefore the convictions under the relevant provisions of the LE(S)O were safe and the appeals must be dismissed.

Citation
HKSAR v. OTIS ELEVATOR CO (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Appellant: OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY (HK) LIMITED; 2nd Appellant: NG SIU MAN JOSEPH; Respondent: HKSAR
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 October 2011
Case Number
HCMA130/2011
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal to Court of First Instance (high Court)
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed; convictions affirmed
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation of Codes of Practice, Strict/absolute Liability and Defenses, Duties of Contractors and Engineers, Maintenance and Inspection Obligations, Public Safety
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Regulatory Compliance Administrative Law Health and Safety Regulation Statutory Interpretation of Codes of Practice Strict/absolute Liability and Defenses Duties of Contractors and Engineers Maintenance and Inspection Obligations +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY (HK) LIMITED

1st Appellant

NG SIU MAN JOSEPH

2nd Appellant

HKSAR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal to Court of First Instance (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution was required to prove the lift manufacturer and its recommended maintenance schedule for Clause 4.5.1(r)
  2. 2 Proper construction of Clause 4.5.1(r) of the Code of Practice and whether it imposes a discrete duty to keep a lift in good working order
  3. 3 Whether Clause 5.1(xiv) imposes a discrete duty on the registered lift engineer to properly examine ropes

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Clause 4.5.1 imposes an obligation to check specified lift components in accordance with a manufacturers recommended schedule for the purpose of keeping the lift in good working order, that on the admitted facts no such checking occurred and the periodic examination could not possibly have detected the appalling state of the suspension rope if it had complied with the Code, and therefore the convictions under the relevant provisions of the LE(S)O were safe and the appeals must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed; convictions affirmed

Orders

  • Both appeals dismissed
  • Convictions of the 1st and 2nd Appellants upheld