WONG WAI MAN v. KUN TIN ALUMINIUM CO LTD AND OTHERS

WONG WAI MAN v. KUN TIN ALUMINIUM CO LTD AND OTHERS

The 3rd and 4th defendants failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success because they did not show reasonable steps to supervise or check that high‑level glass canopy works were carried out safely; s7 OSHO was not applicable on the facts; and contributory negligence was not proven as the statutory breach was by the employer, not the employee.

Citation
WONG WAI MAN v. KUN TIN ALUMINIUM CO LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: WONG WAI MAN; 1st Defendant: KUN TIN ALUMINIUM CO. LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: AE INTERIOR DESIGN LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: NG WAI CHIM; 4th Defendant: TO YIN MEI
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 December 2012
Case Number
DCPI70/2012
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Application to Set Aside Interlocutory Default Judgment (hearing and Judgment)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment, Duty of Care of Occupiers, Statutory Occupier Duties (osho), Contributory Negligence, Supervision of Independent Contractors
Source Language
EN
Occupiers' Liability Personal Injury Occupational Safety and Health Civil Procedure Setting Aside Default Judgment Duty of Care of Occupiers Statutory Occupier Duties (osho) 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WONG WAI MAN

Plaintiff

KUN TIN ALUMINIUM CO. LIMITED

1st Defendant

AE INTERIOR DESIGN LIMITED

2nd Defendant

NG WAI CHIM

3rd Defendant

TO YIN MEI

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Application to Set Aside Interlocutory Default Judgment (hearing and Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 3rd and 4th defendants discharged their duties as occupiers under s 3 of the Occupiers Liability Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether s 7 of the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance applied to the 3rd and 4th defendants
  3. 3 Whether contributory negligence by the plaintiff negates or reduces liability

Ratio Decidendi

The 3rd and 4th defendants failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success because they did not show reasonable steps to supervise or check that high‑level glass canopy works were carried out safely; s7 OSHO was not applicable on the facts; and contributory negligence was not proven as the statutory breach was by the employer, not the employee.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs of the application to the plaintiff to be taxed if not agreed