HKSAR v. PAUL Y CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. PAUL Y CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

The Court accepted the magistrate's factual findings and preference for the prosecution metallurgical expert: the failed pins were medium carbon substandard pins (not Potaine originals), they fractured by reverse bending fatigue over months with rusting and working-out occurring prior to collapse making the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HKSAR v. PAUL Y CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Appellant: PAUL Y CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO. LTD; Appellant: PAUL Y PLANT HIRE CO LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 January 2008
Case Number
HCMA161/2007
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions affirmed
Legal Topics
Strict Liability Offences, Due Diligence Defence, Expert Forensic Evidence, Product/material Specification, Causation in Structural Failure
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Occupational Safety and Health Regulatory Offences Construction Law Strict Liability Offences Due Diligence Defence Expert Forensic Evidence Product/material Specification +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

PAUL Y CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO. LTD

Appellant

PAUL Y PLANT HIRE CO LTD

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants failed to ensure the tower crane was of good mechanical construction and properly maintained in breach of regulations under the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance Cap 59
  2. 2 Whether the pins that failed were substandard and non-original and whether that causally led to the collapse
  3. 3 Whether the defence of due diligence was made out

Ratio Decidendi

The Court accepted the magistrate's factual findings and preference for the prosecution metallurgical expert: the failed pins were medium carbon substandard pins (not Potaine originals), they fractured by reverse bending fatigue over months with rusting and working-out occurring prior to collapse making the condition patent on proper inspection, and the appellants failed to prove due diligence; therefore the convictions under the lifting-gear regulations are upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal of each appellant against each conviction dismissed
  • Sentences appeals abandoned by leave at hearing