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 District Court held the defendants jointly liable for a construction site fall, rejected contributory negligence, and awarded the plaintiff HK$795,281 plus interest.
The court accepted the prosecution expert that the fall‑protection arrangement in fact created a real and foreseeable risk (shared/altered lifeline permitting entanglement and interruption of continuous secure anchorage); appellants failed to demonstrate they had taken all reasonably practicable steps (no documented procedures, inadequate supervision, lack of signage and control) and therefore did not satisfy s38H; appellants also lacked a genuine reasonable belief that the system was compliant under common law; convictions were therefore safe and upheld.
Source excerpt
On the accepted evidence (notably PW2's testimony) the court concluded that at the relevant time the works had not progressed to ceiling dismantling and PW1 was not known to be performing that task, therefore the specific information, instruction, training and supervision were not 'required' at that time; the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant omitted to provide the requisite measures, so the conviction could not stand.
Source excerpt
高等法院原訟法庭裁定送遞平台在八號風球下沿用不安全工作制度須負責，原告亦有20%疏忽，終獲判賠HK$1,348,209。
The District Court held the employer and principal contractor jointly and severally liable for a workplace back injury suffered while lifting a heavy drainage cover.
The court dismissed a construction worker’s personal injury claim after finding he failed to prove he slipped on a slippery pipe as pleaded.
The magistrate properly exercised discretion to deny costs because independent and objectively credible photographic evidence supported a finding of self-invited suspicion or conduct that reasonably led the prosecution to bring charges; refusal of costs did not breach the presumption of innocence because withdrawal was due to an unavailable key witness and the court may consider background independent evidence in a costs decision.
Source excerpt
The court found the defendants liable after a workplace knee injury was sustained while manually adjusting a precast slab, and rejected contributory negligence.
The District Court held that the applicant was an employee injured at work, found both respondents liable under the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance, and awarded HK$721,427 net.
The original information described known offences and the defect was procedural duplicity rather than nullity; the magistrate validly exercised s27 powers to split and amend the counts because the amended charges derived from the same factual matter and were not time‑barred; the trial judge correctly accepted prosecution evidence (including photographic and expert evidence) and properly rejected the defence expert as result‑focused; the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt both offences under Cap.123 and the convictions must stand.
Source excerpt
Explore more
