Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Apportionment of liability

Legal area

Court

10 Mar 2026

HANWHA TOTAL PETROCHEMICAL CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHANGHONG GROUP (HK) LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1493
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ6/2018

Because the apportionment of liability was only adopted by order on 24 April 2024 and negotiations about costs continued until a revised offer on 12 June 2024, the court applied the starting principle of 30% entitlement for the plaintiffs up to and including 12 June 2024 and awarded 100% thereafter; accordingly the Defendant must pay 30% of costs up to and including 12 June 2024 and 100% thereafter, payable forthwith on summary assessment.
16 Dec 2025

TSE KA LAM v. WAN ON TRANSPORTATION COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6261
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI951/2015

The court preferred the plaintiff's contemporaneous eyewitness evidence over TP1's out‑of‑court statement and the Marine Department report, found the defendant breached duties by failing to provide sufficient manpower, a licensed signaler and adequate communication such that the crane movement caused the plaintiff's fall, rejected contributory negligence, fixed defendant liability to the plaintiff, apportioned responsibility between defendant and TP1 at 50:50, and awarded damages totalling HK$1,207,831 with specified breakdown and interest; judgment was entered against TP1 and TP2 to the defe…
6 Jun 2025

SIT KAN TAT v. WORLD-CLASS TALENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 539
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP167/2024

Leave to appeal denied because defendants failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success: the judge's findings that the plaintiff's reduced employability resulted from the injury coupled with post‑pandemic market shrinkage were supported by pleadings and evidence; defendants had opportunity to test or rebut that evidence and did not; no adequate basis was shown that the pandemic alone would have caused identical loss; contributory negligence and apportionment were within the judge's fact‑finding discretion.
9 Apr 2025

LAM PING KIT v. ZUNG FU COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1388
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI90/2019

TP2 was an occupier of the premises during the night shifts, breached its occupier duties by failing to ensure the toilet was safe, the defendant's settlement with the plaintiff was bona fide, and TP2 was therefore liable to the plaintiff; on apportionment the defendant bears two thirds and TP2 one third of liability, entitling the defendant to contribution of HK$385,227 from TP2 together with interest and costs (orders nisi).
18 Jul 2024

RAUT PUSPA v. S. P. ENGINEERING (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1878
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI302/2019

Defendants' admission of liability was accepted on the basis that they failed to prescribe a safe system of work; the court rejected the defendants' un‑pleaded case that plaintiff caused the dangerous state of loading and found plaintiff contributorily negligent to the extent of 10%, reducing his damages accordingly; medical evidence established the injury was caused by the accident but there was some pre‑existing degenerative change which affected assessment of quantum.
20 Jun 2024

CHEVALIER (HK) LTD v. CHAN WING CHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 950
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3366/2022

Plaintiff was entitled to recover the employees' compensation settlement sum and associated legal costs under s25(1)(b) ECO and s3 CLCO; applying s4(1) CLCO and authority on insolvency of a co-tortfeasor the court apportioned responsibility to the 1st Defendant at 87.75% and awarded the plaintiff HK$132,132.81 against the 1st Defendant plus interest and costs.
22 May 2024

CHEUNG HING v. ROTH & SONS ESTATES MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 756
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI181/2019

Based on the contemporaneous letter and witness evidence the leak was likely caused by a loosened rubber hose installed and replaced by the tenant; the landlord did not create the defect and was not on notice so the risks were not reasonably foreseeable and no duty of care arose toward users of the common area; accordingly the 1st Third Party is not liable and the defendant's contribution claim is dismissed.
18 Mar 2024

SIT KAN TAT v. WORLD-CLASS TALENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 420
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI3632/2020

The court found the accident occurred as described and that both defendants breached their duties: the 1st defendant (employer) was negligent for failing to provide adequate supervision, reminders and safety system compliance; the 2nd defendant (occupier) breached its statutory and common law duties under s7(1) OSHO and occupiers' duty by failing to ensure compliance with a conspicuous Safety Warning and by allowing a supervisor to model the dangerous practice; plaintiff was contributorily negligent (conscious acceptance of obvious risk) and assessed 35% liable; apportionment between defendan…
4 Oct 2023

BRIGHT SHIPPING LTD v. CHANGHONG GROUP (HK) LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2990
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ3/2018

Because the Shanghai Maritime Court has finally determined apportionment and the Defendant did not dispute the application of issue estoppel or identify evidence to resist it, the Hong Kong court must make an order reflecting the 70%/30% apportionment; similarly, the Defendant failed to establish that the Plaintiff should pay the costs of the adjourned trial and the proposed costs orders in the summons are appropriate. The payment into court issue was left for further argument.
14 Sept 2023

MAN KING CHUEN AND OTHERS v. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE HONG KONG HONG LOK YUEN ASSOCIATION LTD (formerly known as HONG LOK YUEN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ASSOCIATION LTD) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2342
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA299/2011

The Relevant Order (282(b)) must be read as requiring D1 and D2 to pay damages/mesne profits in respect of the portions of the Subject Lot they occupied; the sealed judgment is clarified to reflect several liability apportioned according to the relative sizes of the portions occupied (D1 liable for B and C only, equivalent to approximately 60% and D2 for the remainder); the Court has inherent power to amend/clarify the sealed order where the true meaning is manifest and no prejudice is caused to the other party.