Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The District Court dismissed a personal injuries claim arising from an alleged mahjong parlour incident, finding the plaintiff lacked credibility and liability was not proved.
Plaintiff failed to prove the accident occurred in the specific manner pleaded; contemporaneous police, ambulance and medical records and inconsistent witness accounts undermined the plaintiff's version; res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable; on balance of probabilities the claim against both defendants fails and is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court of First Instance refused leave to appeal from the Small Claims Tribunal, holding that the proposed grounds did not identify any proper question of law.
District Court granted leave to appeal only on Ground 10 concerning foreseeability of loss of rental income, and refused leave on the other 12 grounds.
The District Court held all three defendants liable for a construction-site fall, finding breaches of CSSR Reg 38A and 38AA and awarding the plaintiff HK$479,733 plus interest.
The Court of First Instance dismissed a personal injuries claim arising from pituitary surgery, finding informed consent had been obtained and liability not proved.
The Court of First Instance granted leave for the 2nd defendant to issue a third party notice against the Hospital Authority in an infant medical negligence action.
The District Court held the defendants jointly liable for a construction site fall, rejected contributory negligence, and awarded the plaintiff HK$795,281 plus interest.
Assessment of damages in a road traffic personal injury claim. The court rejected causation and most heads of loss, awarding only HK$5,000 for vehicle repair costs.
Claim struck out because claimant plainly and obviously failed to discharge the evidential burden to prove on the balance of probabilities that his COVID‑19 infection arose out of and in the course of his employment; absence of contemporaneous reporting, lack of medical or environmental evidence linking infection to workplace, contradictory documentary record and alternative explanations rendered the claim incapable of success under O.18 r.19.
Source excerpt
Explore more
