CHAN CHEUNG v. HONOUR HALL ENGINEERING LTD (In liquidation) AND ANOTHER

CHAN CHEUNG v. HONOUR HALL ENGINEERING LTD (In liquidation) AND ANOTHER

The court found res ipsa loquitur inapplicable because the direct cause of the injury was the negligent vehicle hitting the barrier; the plaintiff failed to prove that the 2nd defendant breached its duty as occupier because he did not provide evidence of what barriers or TTA were reasonably required or what was used; accordingly the 2nd defendant was not liable. Damages were assessed for the plaintiff against the 1st defendant in the specified sum after deductions.

Citation
CHAN CHEUNG v. HONOUR HALL ENGINEERING LTD (In liquidation) AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant (employer): 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant (principal Contractor): CHINA HARBOUR-PEAKO JOINT VENTURE
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 May 2014
Case Number
DCPI2225/2012
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Judgment (liability and Damages)
Outcome
Claim against 2nd Defendant dismissed; damages assessed against 1st Defendant
Legal Topics
Negligence, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Duty of Care, Damages Assessment, Statutory Compliance, Temporary Traffic Arrangements
Source Language
EN
Tort Occupiers' Liability Employment Law Personal Injury Negligence Res Ipsa Loquitur Duty of Care Damages Assessment +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant (employer)

CHINA HARBOUR-PEAKO JOINT VENTURE

2nd Defendant (principal Contractor)

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Judgment (liability and Damages)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd defendant was negligent as occupier of the site
  2. 2 Whether res ipsa loquitur applies
  3. 3 Causation: whether injury was caused by barrier failure or third-party vehicle

Ratio Decidendi

The court found res ipsa loquitur inapplicable because the direct cause of the injury was the negligent vehicle hitting the barrier; the plaintiff failed to prove that the 2nd defendant breached its duty as occupier because he did not provide evidence of what barriers or TTA were reasonably required or what was used; accordingly the 2nd defendant was not liable. Damages were assessed for the plaintiff against the 1st defendant in the specified sum after deductions.

Court Disposition

Claim against 2nd Defendant dismissed; damages assessed against 1st Defendant

Orders

  • Claim against 2nd Defendant is dismissed.
  • Costs to 2nd Defendant, to be taxed on a party/party basis, if not agreed.