MOHAMMAD SHAKIL v. LAM SIU KWONG trading under the name or style of TAT LEE ENGINEERING AND ANOTHER

MOHAMMAD SHAKIL v. LAM SIU KWONG trading under the name or style of TAT LEE ENGINEERING AND ANOTHER

The court accepted the plaintiff's account, found he was acting on express instructions, found both defendants negligent and in breach of statutory duties and found no contributory negligence; accordingly the defendants were liable to pay damages as calculated by the court.

Citation
MOHAMMAD SHAKIL v. LAM SIU KWONG trading under the name or style of TAT LEE ENGINEERING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Mohammad Shakil; 1st Defendant: Lam Siu Kwong trading as Tat Lee Engineering; 2nd Defendant: Dix Construction & Transportation Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 September 2008
Case Number
HCPI610/2007
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; defendants liable for negligence, breach of statutory duty and breach of contract (1st defendant)
Legal Topics
Occupiers Liability, Construction Sites (safety) Regulations, Occupational Safety and Health, Damages Assessment, Contributory Negligence
Source Language
EN
Negligence Personal Injury Occupational Safety Contract Law Statutory Duty Occupiers Liability Construction Sites (safety) Regulations Occupational Safety and Health +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 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Shakil

Plaintiff

Lam Siu Kwong trading as Tat Lee Engineering

1st Defendant

Dix Construction & Transportation Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants breached common law duty of care to employee
  2. 2 Whether defendants breached statutory duties under relevant safety legislation and regulations
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the plaintiff's account, found he was acting on express instructions, found both defendants negligent and in breach of statutory duties and found no contributory negligence; accordingly the defendants were liable to pay damages as calculated by the court.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; defendants liable for negligence, breach of statutory duty and breach of contract (1st defendant)

Orders

  • Defendants to pay the plaintiff damages totalling HK$1,221,493
  • Set off Employees' Compensation received HK$158,100 against special/general damages as applied in calculation