Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Caparo test

Legal area

Court

11 Apr 2014

YEUNG KAI YUEN v. CINERENT LTD

Citation

YEUNG KAI YUEN v. CINERENT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2514/2012

On the balance of probabilities the offending misconnected cable was owned by the defendant, alternatively the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care under the Caparo test and was negligent in permitting unsafe power connections; the plaintiff's right shoulder injury was caused by the Accident; future loss of earnings was not established; judgment entered for the plaintiff for HK$295,473.30 with specified interest and costs orders.
21 Dec 2007

LUK MARY v. HONG KONG BAPTIST HOSPITAL

Citation

LUK MARY v. HONG KONG BAPTIST HOSPITAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI151/2006

On the pleaded facts it was arguable that the hospital, as facility provider, owed a duty to inform discharged patients of the presence of an infectious disease and of precautions to prevent spread to members of the patient’s immediate family; it was also arguable that that duty could extend to the plaintiff (the patient’s sister) given local concepts of family and the pleaded proximity of contact. The claim was not a plain and obvious no‑cause‑of‑action and thus the strike out application must fail.
27 Jul 2006

LEUNG ALFRED CHEUK WAH v. ERNST & YOUNG LLP, CHINA/HONG KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

LEUNG ALFRED CHEUK WAH v. ERNST & YOUNG LLP, CHINA/HONG KONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA390/2005

On the pleaded facts the Plaintiff was not within the class of persons to whom the 1st Defendant as auditor/reporting accountant owed a duty of care for purchases made on the stock market after listing; established authorities (Caparo and subsequent cases) preclude imposing such a duty to the public or market purchasers relying on a prospectus, therefore the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and must be struck out.
26 Jul 1995

YUE XIU FINANCE CO. LTD. and Another v. DERMOT AGNEW and Others

Citation

YUE XIU FINANCE CO. LTD. and Another v. DERMOT AGNEW and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3959/1995

The pleaded facts did not establish the proximity and intention required to impose a duty of care on auditors to these third‑party plaintiffs; foreseeability of reliance alone is insufficient under Caparo and subsequent authority, and the late amendment alleging intention lacked particulars and would not have been allowed — therefore the Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and the amendments are disallowed.

Hong Kong Case Law

YEUNG KAI YUEN v. CINERENT LTD

LUK MARY v. HONG KONG BAPTIST HOSPITAL

LEUNG ALFRED CHEUK WAH v. ERNST & YOUNG LLP, CHINA/HONG KONG AND OTHERS

YUE XIU FINANCE CO. LTD. and Another v. DERMOT AGNEW and Others