Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court refused summary judgment and declined O.14A determinations in an insurance coverage dispute between a kindergarten and its insurer over a choking incident claim.
The District Court allowed an insurer to join employees’ compensation proceedings as second respondent, after the employer failed to take steps and appeared to be abandoning its defence.
The District Court held that the insured breached a motor policy by failing to notify the insurer of the accident, prosecution and claim, and rejected waiver.
The Court of First Instance dismissed a plaintiff’s fraud-based misrepresentation claim arising from a trust-and-insurance arrangement, finding no proved misrepresentations or reliance.
On the balance of probabilities the court accepted plaintiff's witnesses and contemporaneous evidence that the solicitors' letters were delivered to the intermediary in October 2019, and accepted the insurer's evidence that it only received them on 20 March 2020; the delay was caused by the intermediary/defendant, not the plaintiff; the intermediary had a duty to forward claim documents and to supervise staff; defendant breached that duty and caused the insurer to decline cover, therefore defendant is liable to reimburse the settlements and legal costs awarded.
Source excerpt
The District Court dismissed the 4th Defendant’s application for leave to appeal, upheld the costs order, and confirmed a Sanderson order against the 2nd Defendant.
The applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal raises questions of great general or public importance or any other exceptional reasons under s22 of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused. The applicant has no arguable appeal and therefore no basis for a stay; the motion is struck out and the stay application is refused. Costs of the applications are awarded to the respondent in the assessed sum of $33,000; the prior dismissal of the appeal for failure to deposit the $270,000 security remains effective.
Source excerpt
Assessment of damages judgment for an insurer recovering sums paid under an employee compensation policy after the insured failed to notify and defend.
The District Court held that an employees’ compensation policy covering “any Employee” included a driver injured at work, dismissing the insurer’s claim.
On the balance of probabilities the court found the applicant was an employee: respondent exercised control over work allocation and hours, supplied materials and tools, paid the applicant by daily wage evidenced by receipts and WhatsApp records, and acted to process the Form 2; s5(4) applied to treat the accident as in the course of employment; applicant's monthly earnings were calculated from an accepted daily wage of HK$1,600 and average working days to HK$38,400; applying statutory formulas produced awards under s9 (HK$17,088), s10 (HK$130,048) and s10A (HK$1,260) totaling HK$148,396, whi…
Source excerpt
Explore more
