SULTAN ZAHID v. HAO TAI CONTRACTOR LTD AND OTHERS

SULTAN ZAHID v. HAO TAI CONTRACTOR LTD AND OTHERS

D3 was the contractor responsible for the site and D2 and D3 had direct control over the relevant construction work; both D2 and D3 breached Reg 38A(2),(3) and Reg 38AA(2),(3) by failing, so far as was reasonably practicable, to provide suitable and adequate safe access (eg a mobile working platform), to prevent access to a hazardous place and to carry out adequate patrolling; those statutory breaches materially caused the plaintiff's accident and injuries; common law negligence claims against D2 and D3 fail; plaintiff awarded damages net of EC and interest.

Citation
[2026] HKDC 663
Parties
Plaintiff: Sultan Zahid; 1st Defendant: Hao Tai Contractor Limited; 2nd Defendant: Tak Wan Construction & Drilling Co., Limited; 3rd Defendant: Vibro Construction Company Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 April 2026
Case Number
DCPI1445/2022
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff against all three Defendants
Legal Topics
Breach of Statutory Duty Under CSSR Reg 38 A/38 AA, Common Law Negligence, Non Delegable Duty, Reasonable Practicability, Causation, Quantum of Damages, Adverse Inference for Failure to Call Witnesses
Source Language
EN
Personal Injury Construction Law Occupiers' Liability Statutory Duty Employment Law Breach of Statutory Duty Under CSSR Reg 38 A/38 AA Common Law Negligence Non Delegable Duty +4 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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sultan Zahid

Plaintiff

Hao Tai Contractor Limited

1st Defendant

Tak Wan Construction & Drilling Co., Limited

2nd Defendant

Vibro Construction Company Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether D2 and D3 owed and breached statutory duties under Reg 38A(2),(3) and Reg 38AA(2),(3) of the CSSR
  2. 2 Whether D2 and D3 owed a common law duty of care to plaintiff's employee
  3. 3 Whether the defendants took steps so far as was reasonably practicable to provide safe access

Ratio Decidendi

D3 was the contractor responsible for the site and D2 and D3 had direct control over the relevant construction work; both D2 and D3 breached Reg 38A(2),(3) and Reg 38AA(2),(3) by failing, so far as was reasonably practicable, to provide suitable and adequate safe access (eg a mobile working platform), to prevent access to a hazardous place and to carry out adequate patrolling; those statutory breaches materially caused the plaintiff's accident and injuries; common law negligence claims against D2 and D3 fail; plaintiff awarded damages net of EC and interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff against all three Defendants

Orders

  • Judgment entered for plaintiff in the sum of HK$479,733 with interest (2% p.a. on PSLA from service of writ until judgment and thereafter judgment rate; half-judgment rate on pre-trial loss and special damages from date of accident until judgment and thereafter judgment rate)
  • All three Defendants to pay plaintiff's costs of the action (including reserved costs) with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed; costs order nisi to become absolute if not varied within 14 days