Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Construction sites (safety) regulations

Legal area

Court

20 Oct 2011

HKSAR v. CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA158/2011

Appeal allowed and convictions quashed because the trial Deputy Magistrate's acceptance of parts of the sole prosecution witness's testimony, despite major credibility doubts and absence of the allegedly defective ladder as evidence, produced speculative findings and rendered the convictions unsafe.
28 Jul 2011

KWONG KIN YIN v. SHUN LEE COPPER & DECORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

KWONG KIN YIN v. SHUN LEE COPPER & DECORATION LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI285/2008

Plaintiff was an employee of D1; D1 breached its common law and statutory duties to provide a safe system of work; D2, as principal contractor and occupier/manager of the construction site, owed and breached non-delegable duties under the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations (Reg 38A/38B) and is liable; Shun Fat (third party) was not the main subcontractor and is not liable for the accident; plaintiff not guilty of contributory negligence; damages assessed and judgment entered for plaintiff against D1 and D2 for HK$1,429,707.
4 Jul 2011

NG CHUN MO v. WAIHONG ENVIRONMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

NG CHUN MO v. WAIHONG ENVIRONMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI869/2008

D2 (the occupier/property manager) breached statutory and common law duties by failing to take reasonable steps to ensure safe working conditions and is jointly and severally liable with D1; plaintiff was not contributorily negligent; liability is apportioned equally (50/50) between D1 and D2.
19 May 2011

HKSAR v. SANG HING CIVIL CONTRACTORS CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. SANG HING CIVIL CONTRACTORS CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA34/2011

Uncontradicted evidence established no guard-rails, suitable ladders, anchorage or fall-arrest systems were provided on the routes and at the welding location; the risk of falling was foreseeable and continuous fall protection was required, therefore appellants breached statutory duties and their convictions are safe and must be upheld.
5 Sept 2008

MOHAMMAD SHAKIL v. LAM SIU KWONG trading under the name or style of TAT LEE ENGINEERING AND ANOTHER

Citation

MOHAMMAD SHAKIL v. LAM SIU KWONG trading under the name or style of TAT LEE ENGINEERING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI610/2007

The court accepted the plaintiff's account, found he was acting on express instructions, found both defendants negligent and in breach of statutory duties and found no contributory negligence; accordingly the defendants were liable to pay damages as calculated by the court.
2 Apr 2008

TSANG CHING FEI v. MO KING GUO

Citation

TSANG CHING FEI v. MO KING GUO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2136/2006

On balance of probabilities the judge accepted plaintiff was employed by defendant at the site and that defendant, as employer and occupier, breached common law and statutory duties by failing to provide a safe system of work, adequate equipment and footwear; defendant failed to rebut the evidential case and was liable for negligence and statutory breaches; damages were assessed and offset by payments made by defendant.
24 Aug 2007

TSUI KWAN FAI v. GOLDFIELD N & W CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

TSUI KWAN FAI v. GOLDFIELD N & W CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI97/2006

Plaintiff was a lawful visitor, fell from a defective wooden ladder bearing the defendant's name supplied at the site, the defendant as occupier and main contractor breached common law duty and statutory duties under the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations, contributory negligence was not established, and plaintiff was entitled to damages totalling HK$783,670.
19 Oct 2004

HKSAR v. TAKASAGO THERMAL ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. TAKASAGO THERMAL ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA398/2004

The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed because the newly produced affirmation from a crucial witness went to the heart of the factual dispute and should be tested by cross‑examination at trial; accordingly a retrial in the Magistrate's Court was ordered. The appellate court will not disturb the magistrate's findings absent clear error, but fresh evidence of central importance warrants remediation by retrial.
24 May 2004

HKSAR v. DICKSON CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. DICKSON CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA92/2004

The Magistrate did not err in principle: the offences were serious, previous similar convictions justified a deterrent approach, the totality principle was considered and the cumulative fines of HK$60,000 and HK$30,000 were not manifestly excessive and are upheld.
9 Jan 2003

HKSAR v. HYUNDAI ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Citation

HKSAR v. HYUNDAI ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA815/2002

The court held that the appellant failed to take adequate steps under Regulation 38B(1); the statutory defences in Regulation 38H were not proved on the balance of probabilities; and the claimed common law defence of honest belief/mistake of fact is excluded for these safety strict liability offences—therefore the magistrate's conviction is affirmed.