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 found the defendant liable for a workplace crane accident, rejected contributory negligence, and awarded the plaintiff HK$1,207,831 plus interest.
Personal injuries claim by a rigger dismissed after the court found no breach of duty and assessed 30% contributory negligence, with employees’ compensation already covering the accident loss.
In a contribution claim after settlement of a personal injury action, the court held TP2 was an occupier, found the settlement bona fide, and apportioned liability 2/3 to the defendant and 1/3 to TP2.
Personal injuries action arising from a slip and fall in a Hong Kong lift lobby failed: the plaintiff did not prove wetness before the fall or causation, and the claim was dismissed.
The District Court dismissed a personal injuries claim arising from a construction-site accident, preferring contemporaneous records over later testimony and finding no liability.
Personal injuries claim from a scaffolding accident at a Hong Kong construction site. The court found no effective lifeline, rejected contributory negligence, and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
The court dismissed a personal injuries claim from a Police College staircase incident, finding the knee injury arose from pre-existing instability rather than actionable negligence.
The plaintiff’s slip-and-fall claim failed because he did not prove the fall was caused by wet ground, uneven surface, or defective shoes.
The court dismissed a defendant’s summons for leave to appeal against an amendment order, holding the proposed pleading was not shown to be a new cause of action or bound to fail.
First defendant, as the maintenance contractor, failed to prove it performed adequate periodic inspections or maintenance; the lift was unsafe and a sensor malfunction caused the 2-inch gap, so first defendant breached common law duty and specific statutory duties under Cap.618 (ss12(1),15(2)(b),22(1)); Occupiers Liability Ordinance was inapplicable on facts and defendant was liable to plaintiff for damages, with specified deductions and interest.
Source excerpt
Explore more
