2 May 2023
Leave to appeal refused because the Tribunal's factual findings were supported by evidence (photographs and testimony), the Tribunal applied relevant legal principles correctly (including apportionment of contributory negligence), and the defendant failed to identify a pure question of law or any perverse or irrational factual finding warranting leave.
15 Mar 2016
On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff fell from the fence wall as he described; both defendants breached statutory duties under the CSSR and were negligent/liable as occupiers and employer; the criminal convictions shift the burden and are persuasive; plaintiff was contributory negligent to the extent of 30%; damages are awarded as calculated and reduced for contributory negligence and credited for employees' compensation, yielding a net award of HKD 1,618,242.18 plus ordered interest and costs nisi.
7 Jan 2013
Court found the plaintiff injured at work on 4 November 2010 while carrying two metal scaffolds; defendants breached duties (insufficient training/supervision and failure to provide information/risk measures) and are 80% liable, plaintiff 20% contributorily negligent; plaintiff reached maximal medical improvement with residual restrictions; pre-existing spinal degeneration warranted a 30% reduction to PSLA and loss of earning capacity and halving the future-earnings multiplier from 14 to 7; damages assessed accordingly with credit for employees' compensation and interest and costs ordered.
5 Jul 2010
The court held there was no breach of contract because the bank transmitted according to the plaintiff's instructions; the bank was negligent for failing to query contradictory information but the plaintiff's incorrect details were the predominant cause (70% fault), the trading losses were too remote and not recoverable, and the plaintiff's out of time leave applications lacked reasonable prospects and were dismissed with costs.
6 Jan 2003
The 1st defendant breached his duty of care by undertaking a dangerous U-turn without adequate warnings or ensuring the oncoming plaintiff had stopped; the 2nd defendant is vicariously liable for the 1st; the 3rd defendant (occupier) was negligent in advising and facilitating a risky re-circulation without sufficient staff or controls; the plaintiff was 60% contributorily negligent for failing to keep proper lookout (admitted looking for a seal), so defendants are jointly 40% liable, apportioned 20% to 1st/2nd and 20% to 3rd; the unsigned/unheard police statement of the security guard Chik Wi…
4 Jul 2000
The court accepted the plaintiffs' evidence that wages, dividends and reimbursements paid to the deceased formed part of their income, applied the percentage method for dependency valuation per Seagroatt/Tsang, adopted multipliers of 10 and 15 for the respective deceased based on working life evidence, awarded loss of accumulation because of an established savings pattern, allowed loss of services to children but not spouses, disallowed probate/legal costs under LARCO s20(2)(b)(i), and reduced awards by 40% for contributory negligence resulting in judgments against the 2nd defendant for speci…
19 May 2000
Appeal dismissed: where a contractor is statutorily responsible under reg 38A, mere subcontracting or contractual provisions obliging the subcontractor to provide some safety equipment do not, absent clear words, absolve the contractor of civil liability; the appellant did not establish due diligence nor that the accident was solely the respondent's fault, and causation between the breach (lack of ladder/proper access) and injury was established (contributory negligence assessed at 50% by lower court).
10 Apr 1999
Judge found on the facts that the deceased painted from the unfenced roof to the knowledge of the contractor/employer; the roof was a construction site within Cap.59 and the 2nd Defendant breached Regulations 38A, 38P and 38Q and the employer's non-delegable duty by failing to provide guard-rails or an adequate independent lifeline and fall arrester; the 1st Defendant as occupier breached its common duty by allowing or turning a blind eye to use of the unfenced roof; breaches by both defendants were causative of the fatal fall; contributory negligence assessed at 20% reduced liability; damage…
8 Mar 1976
Judge found defendant negligent for failing to keep proper lookout and not exercising proper control at a pedestrian crossing; plaintiff was contributorily negligent to the extent of 50%; general damages assessed at $14,000 and special damages at $6,000 (rounded), combined limited to $20,000 by jurisdictional rule in Kelly v. Stockport, reduced by 50% for contributory negligence to a final judgment of $10,000, with specified interest and costs orders.
31 Jan 1975
The court held the trial judge’s primary factual finding that the child suddenly pursued a bouncing ball and thereby created an unexpected emergency was supported by the evidence, but the driver breached his duty by failing to slow when he saw children with a ball; liability is apportioned two-thirds to the child and one-third to the driver, reducing damages accordingly.