HO BING CHEUNG v. LAM YIN TUK t/a OCEAN FAST FOOD AND OTHERS

HO BING CHEUNG v. LAM YIN TUK t/a OCEAN FAST FOOD AND OTHERS

Court found on the evidence that oil had leaked from the 1st Defendant's exhaust vent and that he failed to take adequate preventive and remedial measures; the 2nd to 4th Defendants had a reasonable inspection and cleaning system and were not negligent; plaintiff was not contributorily negligent; therefore judgment for plaintiff against 1st Defendant only for assessed damages.

Citation
HO BING CHEUNG v. LAM YIN TUK t/a OCEAN FAST FOOD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Defendant: Proprietor of Ocean Fast Food; 2nd Defendant: AY-NASSAU INVESTMENTS LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: The Incorporated Owners of Mei Foo Sun Chuen Stage V; 4th Defendant: The Incorporated Owners of Mei Foo Sun Chuen Stage VI
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 December 2004
Case Number
DCPI66/2004
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (slip and Fall) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant; claim against 2nd to 4th Defendants dismissed.
Legal Topics
Slip and Fall, Occupiers Liability Ordinance S.3, Inspection and Maintenance of Premises, Contributory Negligence, Quantum of Damages
Source Language
EN
Torts Occupiers' Liability Negligence Damages Law Slip and Fall Occupiers Liability Ordinance S.3 Inspection and Maintenance of Premises Contributory Negligence +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Proprietor of Ocean Fast Food

1st Defendant

AY-NASSAU INVESTMENTS LIMITED

2nd Defendant

The Incorporated Owners of Mei Foo Sun Chuen Stage V

3rd Defendant

The Incorporated Owners of Mei Foo Sun Chuen Stage VI

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (slip and Fall) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant was liable for oil leaking from his exhaust vent causing the plaintiff to slip
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd to 4th Defendants (management and incorporated owners) breached occupier duties under OLO s.3
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

Court found on the evidence that oil had leaked from the 1st Defendant's exhaust vent and that he failed to take adequate preventive and remedial measures; the 2nd to 4th Defendants had a reasonable inspection and cleaning system and were not negligent; plaintiff was not contributorily negligent; therefore judgment for plaintiff against 1st Defendant only for assessed damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant; claim against 2nd to 4th Defendants dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for Plaintiff against 1st Defendant in the sum of $261,599.95
  • Order nisi for costs of the action to the Plaintiff to be paid by the 1st Defendant to be taxed if not agreed with Certificate for Counsel