WEI WEI 對 CHI CHIH TUNG及另一人

WEI WEI 對 CHI CHIH TUNG及另一人

On the balance of probabilities the evidence of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department and admissions established second defendant as the dog owner; police notes were less reliable. First defendant was neither owner nor handler at the time and owed no duty as owner/handler; plaintiff failed to prove scienter against first defendant and failed to prove negligence or breach of Cap.167D against him. The psychiatric injury claim was not proved causally beyond transient fear. Damages assessed against the owner (second defendant) at HKD 84,939 plus interest; admission of the late psychiatric report was permitted as an exercise of discretion.

Citation
[2018] HKDC 940
Parties
Plaintiff: WEI WEI; First Defendant: CHI CHIH TUNG; Second Defendant: WONG YIN MUI
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 August 2018
Case Number
DCPI990/2015
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (dog Bite) / Trial; Assessment of Damages (interlocutory Judgment Entered Against Second Defendant)
Outcome
Claim against first defendant dismissed; judgment entered for plaintiff against second defendant for HKD 84,939 plus interest; costs orders nisi issued (plaintiff to pay first defendant's costs; second defendant to pay plaintiff's costs); costs to be assessed if not agreed.
Legal Topics
Scienter (strict Liability), Negligence Duty of Care, Breach of Statutory Duty, Damages Assessment, Admissibility of Late Evidence, Causation
Source Language
CH
Tort Animal Law Statutory Liability Evidence Scienter (strict Liability) Negligence Duty of Care Breach of Statutory Duty 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WEI WEI

Plaintiff

CHI CHIH TUNG

First Defendant

WONG YIN MUI

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (dog Bite) / Trial; Assessment of Damages (interlocutory Judgment Entered Against Second Defendant)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether first defendant was owner or person in control of the dog at time of incident
  2. 2 Whether scienter (owner's knowledge of dangerous propensity) established against first defendant
  3. 3 Whether first defendant breached duty of care as owner or handler (negligence)

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the evidence of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department and admissions established second defendant as the dog owner; police notes were less reliable. First defendant was neither owner nor handler at the time and owed no duty as owner/handler; plaintiff failed to prove scienter against first defendant and failed to prove negligence or breach of Cap.167D against him. The psychiatric injury claim was not proved causally beyond transient fear. Damages assessed against the owner (second defendant) at HKD 84,939 plus interest; admission of the late psychiatric report was permitted as an exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Claim against first defendant dismissed; judgment entered for plaintiff against second defendant for HKD 84,939 plus interest; costs orders nisi issued (plaintiff to pay first defendant's costs; second defendant to pay plaintiff's costs); costs to be assessed if not agreed.

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiff against second defendant in the sum of HKD 84,939
  • Interest: general damages at 2% per annum from writ date (7 May 2015) to date of judgment, thereafter at judgment debt rate until payment; special damages at 4% per annum from date of incident (16 Nov 2013) to date of judgment, thereafter at judgment debt rate until payment