RAJWINDER SINGH v. MAN HUNG KWAN AND ANOTHER

RAJWINDER SINGH v. MAN HUNG KWAN AND ANOTHER

The plaintiff pleaded only vicarious liability of the 2nd defendant as principal contractor and did not plead any non-delegable statutory or common law duty, any personal negligence of the 2nd defendant, or authorization/ratification of the tort. Applying the general rule that principals are not vicariously liable for independent contractors and no pleaded exception applies, the 2nd defendant is not vicariously liable; the claim against the 2nd defendant is dismissed.

Citation
RAJWINDER SINGH v. MAN HUNG KWAN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant (sub Contractor): 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant (principal Contractor): 2nd Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 April 2013
Case Number
DCPI17/2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (tort/negligence) / Interlocutory Application Under Order 14 a Heard and Decided; Alternative Strike Out Application Under Order 18 R 19 Considered
Outcome
Claim against 2nd defendant dismissed under Order 14A; alternative strike out under Order 18 r 19 would also apply as Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action.
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability of Principal Contractor, Independent Contractor Rule, Non Delegable Duty, Order 14 a Determination, Strike Out for No Reasonable Cause of Action
Source Language
EN
Tort Vicarious Liability Employment Law Civil Procedure Vicarious Liability of Principal Contractor Independent Contractor Rule Non Delegable Duty Order 14 a Determination +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant (sub Contractor)

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant (principal Contractor)

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (tort/negligence) / Interlocutory Application Under Order 14 a Heard and Decided; Alternative Strike Out Application Under Order 18 R 19 Considered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd defendant as principal contractor is vicariously liable for negligence of the 1st defendant or the 1st defendant's employees
  2. 2 Whether any exception to the independent contractor rule (employer's personal fault, authorization/ratification, non-delegable statutory or common law duty) applies
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's Statement of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action against the 2nd defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff pleaded only vicarious liability of the 2nd defendant as principal contractor and did not plead any non-delegable statutory or common law duty, any personal negligence of the 2nd defendant, or authorization/ratification of the tort. Applying the general rule that principals are not vicariously liable for independent contractors and no pleaded exception applies, the 2nd defendant is not vicariously liable; the claim against the 2nd defendant is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim against 2nd defendant dismissed under Order 14A; alternative strike out under Order 18 r 19 would also apply as Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action.

Orders

  • Dismiss the plaintiff's claim against the 2nd defendant (2nd defendant not vicariously liable)
  • If not dismissed under O.14A, strike out plaintiff's claim against the 2nd defendant under Order 18 r 19 (discloses no reasonable cause of action)