Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contribution and indemnity

Legal area

Court

27 Aug 2024

CHEUNG KI LAM 對 CHOI TAK TAI 及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1362
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2504/2019

Court accepted the plaintiff's account and the criminal conviction as strong evidence that the first defendant was the aggressor and is civilly liable for assault; the second defendant was not liable because the assault was not a real and foreseeable risk of the employer's operations; contributory negligence did not apply; damages were assessed but set-off by employee compensation exceeded the award so plaintiff receives nothing; separately the second defendant is entitled to statutory contribution/indemnity from the first defendant in the sum assessed.
22 Dec 2023

BARBARA PUI YUNG LYNN, the Administratrix of the estate of late Mr. JACK LYNN, deceased v. YEUNG KEUNG CHI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3351
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA177/2021

D5 established the first three elements of unjust enrichment in respect of the sums received by D2–D4 and the alleged defences (bona fide mortgagee for value without notice; change of position; netting off; payments from parents not being at D5's expense) did not raise triable issues under Order 14; accordingly D2–D4 must hold the respective sums received on trust for D5, must refund them, and must contribute and indemnify D5 in respect of the Plaintiff's claim against her.
30 Oct 2023

CHAU YUEN HEUNG v. JEKCO ELEVATORS LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2750
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI956/2015

On the balance of probabilities the traction shaft had been trimmed and sleeved (an improper modification) which compromised its integrity and caused fatigue failure; Jekco failed to prove that an increased load from renovations was the sole or decisive cause; as registered lift contractor Jekco had independent duties to investigate and advise and cannot shift liability to the Third Parties in the absence of proof that the Third Parties knew or withheld material facts; accordingly Jekco is not entitled to contribution or indemnity from the Third Parties and its third‑party claim fails.
21 Mar 2023

AMJAD-UL-MAHMOOD v. PROFIT HILL INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 347
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI534/2017

D2 (the incorporated owners) was an occupier and responsible person under LEO with sufficient control over the lift; the accident more probably resulted from a sudden halt due to lift malfunction caused by garbage in the door sill and longstanding poor maintenance which D2 failed to remedy despite AEEL recommendations; D2 therefore breached statutory and common law duties and is liable for the accident; D1 was not a responsible person or occupier and is not liable to the plaintiff; D2 must indemnify/contribute to D1 for the EC payment and associated costs; plaintiff's recoverable damages are…
19 Sept 2022

SUN HING GINZA LTD v. CHAN KAI YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2893
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1357/2012

Because Lucky Ford has been in compulsory liquidation and there is reason to believe it would be unable to meet an adverse costs order, and because on balance it was fair and just in all circumstances to require security while taking account of overlap and lack of apportionment, the court ordered security for costs payable into court but substantially reduced the quantum sought to a broad‑brush figure of HK$1,500,000 and imposed compliance and dismissal consequences for non‑payment.
16 May 2022

HONG KONG ALZHEIMER\'S DISEASE ASSOCIATION v. WILL RICH LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 304
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2851/2016

The burst U-bend formed part of the sewage apparatus used exclusively by the tenant; the covenant to repair in the lease covers such sanitary and water apparatus; tenant had actual or constructive knowledge, failed to inspect and maintain, allowed grease and food residue into the system, failed to obtain professional remediation and refused to stop using water after notice thereby causing and aggravating the leakage; fair wear and tear was not proved and so did not absolve tenant; accordingly the tenant (2nd defendant) is liable in contract (indemnity under the covenant), negligence and nuisa…
23 Mar 2022

GURUNG BISHAN v. PROFIT SPREAD LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 862
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI493/2015

Lermond Engineering established it would have been liable as occupier and Profit Spread would also have been liable as employer on the assumed facts; therefore under ss 3 and 4 CLCO Profit Spread must contribute to the settlement. Having regard to respective responsibilities the court apportioned liability 80% to Profit Spread and 20% to Lermond Engineering and ordered Profit Spread to pay 80% of the settlement sum ($360,000) with interest and costs nisi.
23 Apr 2021

CHAU YUEN HEUNG v. JEKCO ELEVATORS LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1095
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI956/2015

Court allowed defendant/third-party claimant to amend pleadings to allege the 1997/2002 renovations and to seek further expert evidence because (a) the 27-page documentary disclosure was properly discoverable under the Peruvian Guano relevance test and materially enabled the defendant to particularise its causation case, (b) existing expert opinion supported the relevance of increased load as a mechanism for crack propagation making the amendments arguable, and (c) there was no unjustifiable prejudice given remaining time to trial and directions for consolidated tripartite expert reporting wo…
5 Jun 2020

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG FAT BUILDING BLOCK A KAM PING STREET v. NG KING FONG JUDY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKDC 354
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4309/2015

On the balance of probabilities the court found D1, D2 and D3 had possession of keys, received and opened the mail containing the writ and then failed to forward it to the insurer; that omission caused the insurer to deny cover and caused the plaintiff's loss. That conduct breached s28 and s26A of the BMO and fell short of the s29A statutory defence. Judgment awarded against D1, D2 and D3 for HK$550,000 with interest. D4-D8 and TP were not liable; contribution claim against D4 dismissed; third party action dismissed.
21 Aug 2019

YUEN KAM LOK EDDY v. LAU GEORGE

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1109
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5821/2018

The Deed is to be construed so that Clause 3(c) covers obligations that the plaintiff had already assumed with the defendant's prior written consent in 2013 and does not require a second round of prior written approval before reimbursement is payable; the Bank's claim for overdue hire charges and legal costs was a claim in debt (not damages) and thus mitigation principles did not afford defendant an arguable defence; defendant raised no triable issue and summary judgment was proper for the plaintiff for 50% of the sum paid to the Bank.