LAM CHIK CHEUNG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER

LAM CHIK CHEUNG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER

Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the alleged unmarked pothole and therefore failed to establish negligence by either the Director of Highways or Chiu Hing. The defendants' contemporaneous contract records, TTM plans and site diaries showing work at the location occurred in July 1996, together with inconsistencies in the plaintiff's medical notes and witness statements, destroyed the plaintiff's credibility and proved dispositive; claim dismissed.

Citation
LAM CHIK CHEUNG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Lam Chik Cheung; 1st Defendant: The Secretary for Justice for and on behalf of the Director of Highways; 2nd Defendant: Chiu Hing Construction and Transportation Co Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 May 2000
Case Number
HCPI1003/1998
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries / Judgment at Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Pothole Liability, Duty of Care of Highway Authorities, Causation, Contributory Negligence, Evidence Credibility, Costs, Referral to Director of Public Prosecutions
Source Language
EN
Tort Personal Injury Negligence Administrative Law Pothole Liability Duty of Care of Highway Authorities Causation Contributory Negligence +3 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Chik Cheung

Plaintiff

The Secretary for Justice for and on behalf of the Director of Highways

1st Defendant

Chiu Hing Construction and Transportation Co Ltd

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries / Judgment at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unmarked, unguarded pothole existed on Hennessy Road on 30 September 1995
  2. 2 Whether the Director of Highways and/or the contractor Chiu Hing were responsible for the alleged hazard
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff contributed by his own negligence

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the alleged unmarked pothole and therefore failed to establish negligence by either the Director of Highways or Chiu Hing. The defendants' contemporaneous contract records, TTM plans and site diaries showing work at the location occurred in July 1996, together with inconsistencies in the plaintiff's medical notes and witness statements, destroyed the plaintiff's credibility and proved dispositive; claim dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff\'s claim is dismissed.
  • Costs to the first and second defendants, nisi at first instance, taxed if not agreed.