LAM KAN MAU v. WIN CAPITAL (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

LAM KAN MAU v. WIN CAPITAL (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

Court found the major cause of collapse was severe corrosion and failure to maintain the unauthorised cantilevered canopy (principal responsibility of the Incorporated Owners). Contributory causes included long‑term storage in the unauthorised Hut, recent placement of demolition debris and demolition vibrations attributable to shop owners/occupiers and their contractor, and scaffold diagonal bracing contacting the canopy. Balancing blameworthiness and causative potency, the court apportioned liability 35% to the 1st defendant (Win Capital) and 65% to the 4th defendant (Incorporated Owners) and ordered contribution accordingly; the 1st defendant ordered to pay 35% of plaintiffs' costs on...

Citation
LAM KAN MAU v. WIN CAPITAL (HK) LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Liao Kuo Chun; Plaintiff: Wong Fo Yeung; Plaintiff: Choi Sau Chun; Plaintiff: Chan Sau Chun; Plaintiff: Lam Kan Mau; 1st Defendant: Win Capital (HK) Ltd; 2nd Defendant: Ho Ching Mui; 3rd Defendant: Wong Tak Sing; 4th Defendant: The Incorporated Owners of Mei King Mansion Phase II
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 July 2010
Case Number
HCPI1179/2002
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Actions (canopy Collapse) / Contribution Proceedings Under Section 4(1) Civil Liability (contribution) Ordinance (assessment and Apportionment)
Outcome
Contribution apportioned: 1st defendant 35%, 4th defendant 65%; order for contribution to plaintiffs' costs on quantum and costs of contribution proceedings reserved
Legal Topics
Canopy Collapse, Unauthorised Building Works, Apportionment of Contribution, Assessment of Damages, Costs and Insurance Impact
Source Language
EN
Tort Public Nuisance Negligence Building Regulation/enforcement Civil Contribution and Costs Canopy Collapse Unauthorised Building Works Apportionment of Contribution +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liao Kuo Chun

Plaintiff

Wong Fo Yeung

Plaintiff

Choi Sau Chun

Plaintiff

Chan Sau Chun

Plaintiff

Lam Kan Mau

Plaintiff

Win Capital (HK) Ltd

1st Defendant

Ho Ching Mui

2nd Defendant

Wong Tak Sing

3rd Defendant

The Incorporated Owners of Mei King Mansion Phase II

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Actions (canopy Collapse) / Contribution Proceedings Under Section 4(1) Civil Liability (contribution) Ordinance (assessment and Apportionment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What caused the canopy collapse and which factors/actors contributed
  2. 2 How to apportion contribution between 1st and 4th defendants under s4(1) Cap.377
  3. 3 Whether 1st defendant should contribute to plaintiffs' costs and to what extent

Ratio Decidendi

Court found the major cause of collapse was severe corrosion and failure to maintain the unauthorised cantilevered canopy (principal responsibility of the Incorporated Owners). Contributory causes included long‑term storage in the unauthorised Hut, recent placement of demolition debris and demolition vibrations attributable to shop owners/occupiers and their contractor, and scaffold diagonal bracing contacting the canopy. Balancing blameworthiness and causative potency, the court apportioned liability 35% to the 1st defendant (Win Capital) and 65% to the 4th defendant (Incorporated Owners) and ordered contribution accordingly; the 1st defendant ordered to pay 35% of plaintiffs' costs on...

Court Disposition

Contribution apportioned: 1st defendant 35%, 4th defendant 65%; order for contribution to plaintiffs' costs on quantum and costs of contribution proceedings reserved

Orders

  • Apportion responsibility for plaintiffs' damages: 1st defendant to bear 35% and 4th defendant to bear 65%
  • Order that 1st defendant contributes 35% of the plaintiffs' costs in the five actions on the issue of quantum