SO WANG CHUN v. RAINFORCE LTD AND OTHERS

SO WANG CHUN v. RAINFORCE LTD AND OTHERS

Plaintiff failed to prove that the unusual event (slip) was, in the absence of explanation, more consistent with fault on the part of the defendants than the absence of fault; defendants had a reasonable cleaning and security regime and discharged their evidential burden; therefore defendants not liable and claim dismissed (contributory negligence and quantum unnecessary to decide, but assessed at 50% if liability were found).

Citation
SO WANG CHUN v. RAINFORCE LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: So Wang Chun; 1st Defendant: Rainforce Limited; 2nd Defendant: Merechal Limited (in Members Voluntary Liquidation); 3rd Defendant: Zindemar Investments Corporation; 4th Defendant: Hong Yip Service Company Limited; 5th Defendant: Kai Shing Management Services Limited; 6th Defendant: The Incorporated Owners of Uptown Plaza
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 January 2008
Case Number
HCPI64/2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Judgment (court of First Instance, 9 January 2008)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Slip and Fall, Contributory Negligence, Damages Assessment, Duty of Care, Burden of Proof, Cleaning Regimes and Occupier Liability
Source Language
EN
Tort Occupiers' Liability Personal Injury Negligence Contractual Management Obligations Slip and Fall Contributory Negligence Damages Assessment +3 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

So Wang Chun

Plaintiff

Rainforce Limited

1st Defendant

Merechal Limited (in Members Voluntary Liquidation)

2nd Defendant

Zindemar Investments Corporation

3rd Defendant

Hong Yip Service Company Limited

4th Defendant

Kai Shing Management Services Limited

5th Defendant

The Incorporated Owners of Uptown Plaza

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Judgment (court of First Instance, 9 January 2008)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff proved on balance of probabilities an unusual event more consistent with defendants' fault than no fault
  2. 2 Whether defendants discharged evidential burden by showing accident occurred without negligence on their part
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent and, if liable, quantum of damages and assessment adjustments for pre-existing conditions

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove that the unusual event (slip) was, in the absence of explanation, more consistent with fault on the part of the defendants than the absence of fault; defendants had a reasonable cleaning and security regime and discharged their evidential burden; therefore defendants not liable and claim dismissed (contributory negligence and quantum unnecessary to decide, but assessed at 50% if liability were found).

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment entered for defendants dismissing plaintiff's claim
  • Order nisi that the plaintiff do pay the defendants their costs of the action