HO\'S FASHION LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GOLDEN CROWN COURT AND OTHERS

HO\'S FASHION LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GOLDEN CROWN COURT AND OTHERS

The IO was not liable: it had taken reasonable steps in appointing and engaging the project consultant and main contractor; the plaintiffs were not visitors to the common area so Occupiers Liability Ordinance did not apply; the renovation work was ordinary user so Rylands v. Fletcher did not apply; the proposed amendment alleging subcontracting was disallowed as late, immaterial and prejudicial; consequentially no damages were awarded against the IO and storage and insurance charges were disallowed for lack of mitigation and failure to permit inspection.

Citation
HO\'S FASHION LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GOLDEN CROWN COURT AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Ho's Fashion Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Mr Ho; 2nd Plaintiff: Mrs Ho; 1st Defendant: Incorporated Owners of Golden Crown Court; 2nd Defendant: Hip Lee Company Limited; 3rd Defendant: 3rd defendant (worker); 4th Defendant: 4th defendant (employer/sub-contractor)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 January 2009
Case Number
HCA1386/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence/tort / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment Handed Down)
Outcome
Action dismissed against the 1st defendant (Incorporated Owners of Golden Crown Court). Costs awarded to the 1st defendant.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Occupiers Liability, Rylands V. Fletcher, Duty to Select and Supervise Contractors, Amendment of Pleadings, Quantum of Damages, Mitigation and Proof
Source Language
EN
Tort Occupiers Liability Strict Liability (rylands) Contracts/procurement Negligence Rylands V. Fletcher Duty to Select and Supervise Contractors Amendment of Pleadings +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ho's Fashion Limited

1st Plaintiff

Mr Ho

2nd Plaintiff

Mrs Ho

2nd Plaintiff

Incorporated Owners of Golden Crown Court

1st Defendant

Hip Lee Company Limited

2nd Defendant

3rd defendant (worker)

3rd Defendant

4th defendant (employer/sub-contractor)

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence/tort / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment Handed Down)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Incorporated Owners (IO) were negligent in appointing or supervising contractors and thus liable in common law negligence
  2. 2 Whether occupiers' liability under Cap.314 applied to the plaintiffs' loss
  3. 3 Whether the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher applied (non-natural use causing fire)

Ratio Decidendi

The IO was not liable: it had taken reasonable steps in appointing and engaging the project consultant and main contractor; the plaintiffs were not visitors to the common area so Occupiers Liability Ordinance did not apply; the renovation work was ordinary user so Rylands v. Fletcher did not apply; the proposed amendment alleging subcontracting was disallowed as late, immaterial and prejudicial; consequentially no damages were awarded against the IO and storage and insurance charges were disallowed for lack of mitigation and failure to permit inspection.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed against the 1st defendant (Incorporated Owners of Golden Crown Court). Costs awarded to the 1st defendant.

Orders

  • Action dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant, to be taxed if not agreed.