Hong Kong Case Law

FANG ZHAOHUA 對 KAM FUNG ENGINEERING LTD及另一人

Court

District Court

Case number

DCPI1109/2019

Plaintiff's evidence was found wholly unreliable due to deliberate nondisclosure (including imprisonment shortly after the accident) and implausible testimony; defendants had taken reasonable measures appropriate to a construction site and were not negligent; only a minor left knee contusion causally related to the accident requiring simple analgesia; any recoverable damages would be less than the sum already received under workers' compensation; claim dismissed and defendants awarded costs.

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Breach
• Causation
• Quantum of damages
• Credibility and disclosure
• Costs assessment

Read case analysis

WONG YEUNG CHUI YEE v. CITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Court

District Court

Case number

DCPI1522/2016

Personal injuries claim arising from a trolley collision in a shopping arcade. The District Court held all defendants liable and awarded HK$565,840.90, with liability apportioned 50/30/20.

• Duty of care
• Breach
• Contributory negligence
• Apportionment of liability
• Quantum of damages
• Supervision of contractors

Read case analysis

YEUNG PAN NAM v. Personal Representative of TONG YU TAT ANTHONY, deceased AND OTHERS

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACV95/2015

The Court of Appeal upheld a finding that a motorcyclist negligently cut into the bus’s lane and confirmed the 75:25 apportionment of liability.

• Duty of care
• Breach
• Causation
• Vicarious liability
• Apportionment
• Appeal standard of review

Read case analysis

PONY HK WORLD LTD v. VAND PETRO-CHEMICALS (BVI) CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Court

Court of Final Appeal

Case number

FACV4/2013

The Court of Final Appeal held that the put option was never triggered because the contractual “failure” required a discrete refusal, not a continuing delay.

• Put option
• Contract interpretation
• Implied terms
• Breach
• Option exercise period
• Timing of triggering events

Read case analysis

LIMBU DHARAMARAJ v. ISS ADAMS SECUFORCE LTD AND ANOTHER

Court

District Court

Case number

DCPI1568/2011

The District Court found the 1st Defendant negligent after a security guard was injured while closing a manual gate, but reduced damages for 20% contributory negligence.

• Negligence
• Duty of care
• Breach
• Causation
• Contributory negligence
• Quantum of damages

Read case analysis

TAM WING YAN v. SMART ELEGANT ENTERPRISES LTD t/a 小肥牛火鍋活魚專門店

Court

District Court

Case number

DCPI1104/2010

District Court judgment for a diner burned by hot tea in a busy restaurant; liability was found, contributory negligence rejected, and damages were awarded.

• Duty of care
• Breach
• Causation
• Contributory negligence
• Quantum of damages
• Special damages

Read case analysis

TAI MEI LIN v. FUNG KING KONG AND ANOTHER

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCPI425/2006

Personal injuries claim after a car swerved into railings. The court found the 1st defendant negligent, rejected the emergency explanation, and awarded HKD 1,068,146.

• Duty of care
• Standard of care of driver
• Breach
• Causation
• Assessment of damages
• Loss of earnings

Read case analysis

CHEUNG MAN FU v. GREAT VANTAGE DEVELOPMENT LTD

Court

District Court

Case number

DCPI1165/2005

The District Court dismissed a personal injury claim arising from a fall on a wooden board at a restaurant, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the board moved or caused the accident.

• Duty of care
• Breach
• Causation
• Quantum
• Costs
• Occupiers-liability

Read case analysis

CHAN CHI KEE v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Court

District Court

Case number

DCPI720/2004

A visitor sued after slipping on a wet footbridge at a public swimming pool. The court found the LCSD liable, but held the plaintiff 75% contributorily negligent.

• Duty of care
• Breach
• Causation
• Occupier's duty to warn
• Inspection and cleaning regimes
• Foreseeability

Read case analysis

CHAN CHI LUNG v. LAM SHEK WU

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCPI401/2001

The court found the defendant was not negligent in a taxi-pedestrian collision and entered judgment for the defendant with costs, applying the usual rules on lookout and unavoidable accident.

• Duty of care
• Breach
• Causation
• Contributory negligence
• Costs
• Negligence

Read case analysis