26 Jan 2026
The partial risk that disclosure would render the intended appeal nugatory, when weighed in the balance of convenience and in the absence of convincing evidence of misuse or significant prejudice, justified a stay of the Disclosure Order pending determination of the Defendant's application for leave to appeal (CAMP 205/2025).
25 Nov 2024
Apply the Sixth Schedule monthly earnings cap of HK$35,600; calculate s9 compensation as HK$35,600×72×15% = HK$384,480; extend temporary total incapacity to 33 months 12 days on medical evidence and relevant authority and calculate s10 periodic payments as HK$42,859.76/30×1,016 days×4/5 = HK$1,161,213.76; award medical expenses of HK$7,106; order payment of total HK$1,552,799.76 plus interest and costs as directed.
2 Jul 2024
Plaintiff failed to prove substantial performance or that the 3rd PAF Work Record was verified by the Defendant; the Court gave no weight to either party's 3rd PAFs absent evidence of site inspection and rejected the Plaintiff's unsupported >99% (or >90%) completion assertions; omission to call Mr Lam permitted adverse inference; the Plaintiff repudiated the contract when its director left the site on 4 January 2020 and effectively abandoned works; compute contractual entitlement upon completion at HK$946,000 less agreed deductions and payments to HK$374,884.10; allow Defendant repudiatory da…
5 May 2023
The court allowed a limited amendment to paragraph 5 of the sealed Order to clarify that the deductible "relevant expenses" are those recorded in the Statements (subject to inspection by the 1st Defendant), but refused to delete or amend substantive paragraphs of the Judgment under the slip rule or inherent jurisdiction because that would alter the substance of the Judgment and such errors must be corrected by appeal; the court disallowed the plaintiff's new primary claim and separate claim in paragraph 29 of the PPC as new/unsupported, and disallowed D1's PI (PTSD) claim in Part II as a new,…
15 Jul 2020
The court must give effect to the parties' Agreement by ordering that, failing agreement within the prescribed time, the quantum of the Plaintiffs' claim together with interest be referred to the Registrar (assisted if necessary by an assessor) for assessment; a reference to the Registrar requires a court order under O 75 r 41(1), and remitting the issue to the Registrar to decide whether to fiat the Agreement would conflict with the objectives of O 1A r 1, therefore the court makes the referral and sets a date before which the reference shall not be made.
22 Mar 2019
The court found the plaintiff's injuries were mild soft tissue contusions with no significant anatomic pathology, concluded medical and contemporaneous records did not support inability to resume pre-accident employment, and, applying comparative authorities (including Tong Siu Wai) and the Court of Appeal's guidance on starting points, fixed PSLA at HKD 220,000 and dismissed claims for pre-trial loss of earnings.
19 Nov 2018
The court refused leave because the defendant's grounds challenged tribunal factual findings and credibility rather than raising any arguable question of law or jurisdictional error; the tribunal's assessment of evidence and quantification of labour costs was a permissible factual determination.
3 Nov 2017
With liability established by interlocutory judgment for defendant's default, the court accepted plaintiffs' evidence where supported by documents and photos, admitted the surveyor report as factual evidence only, allowed damages for furniture ($50,000), 1st plaintiff's goods ($230,000), 2nd plaintiff's goods ($31,070) and repair costs ($80,000) after discounting unsupported or excessive items and applying the duty to mitigate, and entered final judgments with interest and costs to be paid by defendant.
17 Feb 2017
Court found 1st Applicant not an honest or reliable witness and that the overall relationship was that of client and independent contractor not employer-employee; although the 2nd Applicant suffered an injury on 24 February 2012, by reason of the parties' agreement and the court's finding on employment status the 2nd Applicant was not an employee; both applications dismissed and Respondent entitled to costs.
24 Nov 2015
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's primary factual findings on liability (no proven accident in the course of employment) and on the applicant's pattern of work (about five days a month) were within the range of reasonable conclusions based on credibility assessments and documentary evidence; no material errors were shown that would render the findings plainly wrong.