Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Damages/quantum

Legal area

Court

17 Sept 2014

TSANG SAU YAN v. MAN SHING CLEANING SERVICE COMPANY LTD

Citation

TSANG SAU YAN v. MAN SHING CLEANING SERVICE COMPANY LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2757/2012

The defendant is not liable for breach of duties because the risk of assault by the co-worker was neither real nor reasonably foreseeable given the separation of duties and lack of prior violent history; the defendant is not vicariously liable because the assault was a personal act of revenge not closely connected to the employee's duties; accordingly the plaintiff's claim is dismissed and costs ordered in favour of the defendant.
4 Apr 2014

IGAL DAFNI v. CMA CGM SA

Citation

IGAL DAFNI v. CMA CGM SA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1185/2008

Stay of execution granted in part: limited to US$1.13 million to be paid into court with accrued interest and periodic top-ups every two months, subject to the defendant's undertaking to prosecute the appeal with all due expedition; amendment challenge not arguable and starting date challenge not sufficiently arguable to justify a larger stay.
18 Oct 2012

YIU MEI LEE v. CB RICHARD ELLIS LTD

Citation

YIU MEI LEE v. CB RICHARD ELLIS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA43/2012

Leave to appeal was granted because there is a properly arguable question that the adjudicator misallocated the burden of proof notwithstanding the respondent's contractual duty to maintain drains, and clause B(5)(c) does not clearly exclude liability for the respondent's own negligence; issues on liability and quantum are therefore fit for appellate determination.
21 Apr 2011

HUI CHI YUK v. UNI-TOP AIR AND SEAFREIGHT (H.K.) LTD

Citation

HUI CHI YUK v. UNI-TOP AIR AND SEAFREIGHT (H.K.) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2092/2009

On the balance of probabilities the parties had entered into consecutive monthly contracts on the terms of the Early 2007 Arrangement by conduct; plaintiff therefore entitled to recover $304,754. The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed because it failed to prove that the specific 180 units were handed to the plaintiff and that the loss of 20 notebooks was caused by the plaintiff, and the documentary/hearsay evidence was insufficient to meet the defendant's burden of proof.
18 Aug 2009

MAYAR (HK) LTD v. NAROTAM SAYAL

Citation

MAYAR (HK) LTD v. NAROTAM SAYAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL4/2007

The court held the PSA was an unconditional, binding contract; RBI approval was not a condition precedent and evidence of such a term was inadmissible under the parol evidence rule; there was no oral cancellation or novation substituting Ashita; on audited accounts the court assessed MHK timber division losses at US$3,214,702.56 and awarded defendant's 49% share plus the capital contribution shortfall, totalling US$2,197,204.25; the discrete loan claim of US$18,515 was dismissed; interest and costs were ordered.
14 Feb 2006

CHAN HONG NING v. WAI LEE SCAFFOLDING ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN HONG NING v. WAI LEE SCAFFOLDING ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI116/2005

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff's account was accepted: the transom was not fixed and gave way, causing the eye injury; the defendants (employer and main contractor) breached their duties in providing an unsafe scaffold; there was no contributory negligence; plaintiff is entitled to damages accordingly.

Hong Kong Case Law

TSANG SAU YAN v. MAN SHING CLEANING SERVICE COMPANY LTD

IGAL DAFNI v. CMA CGM SA

YIU MEI LEE v. CB RICHARD ELLIS LTD

HUI CHI YUK v. UNI-TOP AIR AND SEAFREIGHT (H.K.) LTD

MAYAR (HK) LTD v. NAROTAM SAYAL

CHAN HONG NING v. WAI LEE SCAFFOLDING ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER