Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Assault/battery
  • 24 Sept 2024

    陳俊城 對 潘駿樂

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 1569
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI3109/2019

    On the balance of probabilities the court rejected the plaintiff's account due to inconsistency with contemporaneous medical records, internal inconsistencies in the plaintiff's statements, and indicators of witness partiality, and accepted the defendant's account that the plaintiff's injuries were more plausibly caused by a fall or other events, therefore the plaintiff's assault claim fails.

  • 28 Sept 2020

    CHEUNG, JOSEPH WAI LEUK v. CHAN KWOK PING AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 2546
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCPI264/2012

    The court allocated costs according to the outcomes of each appeal and interlocutory application: the plaintiff's appeal allowing reinstatement against the 2nd defendant entitles the plaintiff to costs from the 2nd defendant (including 70% of the 27/11/2014 hearing); leave to amend the 2nd defendant's name leads to costs in the cause for that amendment; the plaintiff's withdrawal of the discovery appeal results in the plaintiff paying the 2nd defendant's costs of that appeal; the 5/8/14 summary assessment costs are to be paid by the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff; Ip Chun's appeal allowing jo…

  • 31 Jan 2008

    WONG YU CHO ROLLY t/a THE HONG KONG MUSEUM OF STONE SCULPTURE & ASIAN ART v. LAM KWOK MAN

    Citation
    WONG YU CHO ROLLY t/a THE HONG KONG MUSEUM OF STONE SCULPTURE & ASIAN ART v. LAM KWOK MAN
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ5422/2006

    The court refused to strike out or stay the District Court Statement of Claim: the assault/battery claim is a distinct cause of action from the High Court negligence claim and not an abuse of process; the negligence claim against the defendant is not shown to be an abuse given different defendants and no prior adjudication; amendment to the summons was allowed; proactive case management including transfer to the Court of First Instance was ordered; defendant to file defence within 14 days; costs orders as specified.