Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duty to warn

Legal area

Court

21 Oct 2025

趙捷對 ASK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY LTD t/a ASK DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY COMPANY

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5429
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA21/2025

Leave to appeal refused because the core disputes were factual, the tribunal's findings that there was no misrepresentation and that the screen protector bubbles were not permanent were supported by evidence and did not involve questions of law or jurisdictional error; Trade Descriptions Ordinance did not apply because there was no prosecution/conviction and no proven loss linked to prohibited conduct.
28 Jun 2019

DYMOCKS FRANCHISE SYSTEMS (CHINA) LTD v. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT HONG KONG (A Partnership)

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1602
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA613/2015

The Engagement Letter and background communications established a retainer broad enough to encompass advising on risks arising from taking over the franchise business; a reasonably competent Hong Kong franchise/commercial solicitor would have warned of the TBPCO risk; the defendant failed to do so and that breach caused the plaintiff's loss; damages were assessed and awarded to the plaintiff accordingly.
16 May 2016

HONG KONG (SAR) HOTEL LTD v. WING KEY CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

HONG KONG (SAR) HOTEL LTD v. WING KEY CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT3/2010

The court held that clause 25(1)(c) applied to temporary safety works because the contract defined 'Works' to include temporary works; an architect's notice to remove defective work can require rectification; the defendant persistently neglected to comply with valid architect's notices and the failures materially affected the Works (safety risks); the employer's notice of determination of 5 October 2009 was not unreasonable or vexatious; consequently the determination was lawful and effective; clause 25(3)(d) does not make the architect's notional final account a condition precedent to the em…
2 Jul 2010

WONG CHEUNG CHUNG v. MTR CORPORATION LTD

Citation

WONG CHEUNG CHUNG v. MTR CORPORATION LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI956/2009

The Court found that the Defendant breached its duty by failing to warn passers-by of a raised gate rail in a dimly lit landing, that omission was a foreseeable cause of the Plaintiff's fall and injuries, the Plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, and damages were to be awarded as quantified in the judgment.
25 Jun 2009

WAI YIP HIN v. WONG PO KIT

Citation

WAI YIP HIN v. WONG PO KIT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV336/2008

The appeal was dismissed because the Court found the instructor owed the plaintiff both a duty to warn a beginner of non-obvious risks and a duty to take reasonable precautions; the defendant breached those duties by failing to warn and by employing the same force used in practice on an inexperienced student, causing injury.
14 Feb 2006

LAI WING CHEUNG v. YEP CHAU CHUNG

Citation

LAI WING CHEUNG v. YEP CHAU CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI43/2005

Expert opinion before the court established that competent medical practice would not normally include warning of the extremely rare dystonic reaction from intramuscular prochlorperazine and that drowsiness (which might warrant warning) did not cause this accident on the facts; accordingly there was no breach of duty by the third party and the third party claim disclosed no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out.
25 Oct 2004

FRANCES CHRISTINE KEELING v. THE HEBE HAVEN YACHT CLUB LTD

Citation

FRANCES CHRISTINE KEELING v. THE HEBE HAVEN YACHT CLUB LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI579/2004

Defendant was vicariously liable for the sampan operator but the plaintiff was primarily to blame for the accident by failing to take reasonable care when boarding; plaintiff contributed 70% to the accident; defendant failed to give warnings but did not act so negligently as to bear majority liability; damages for pain, suffering and pecuniary losses were assessed and reduced by 70% accordingly; subsequent falls were caused partly by the original injury, with apportioned contributory negligence for the third and fourth falls.
22 Mar 2001

LAM MO BUN v. HONG KONG AEROSOL CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

LAM MO BUN v. HONG KONG AEROSOL CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1313/1999

The manufacturers (1st and 2nd defendants) knew or ought to have known that the product could produce an explosive atmosphere when discharged in a confined domestic space and in the presence of operating electrical appliances; they failed to give adequate, specific warnings or instructions beyond statutory labelling; regulatory compliance did not preclude further duty; the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent as there was nothing on the label to put him on notice of the explosion risk; the 3rd defendant was not shown, on balance, to be the seller of the can and thus is not liable; damag…
23 Aug 1996

KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. GALCO INTERNATIONALTOYS N.V

Citation

KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. GALCO INTERNATIONALTOYS N.V
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA320/1991

The court held Galco failed to prove Kader breached the contractual obligations because Kader had manufactured strictly according to Galco's detailed specifications and under Galco's supervision; expert evidence established the principal cause of the unacceptable microbial proliferation was residual water left after Galco-mandated water functional testing (and subsequent conditions), not deficient hygiene at Kader sufficient to found liability; the cited standards were insufficiently prescriptive on microbiological thresholds to impose strict liability for any microbial presence; Galco also f…
17 Apr 1996

KRISTAN BOWERS PHILLIPS v. INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

KRISTAN BOWERS PHILLIPS v. INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4009/1990

The summons for specific discovery was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish that the documents sought were relevant to the Diazinon product at issue (manufactured by Nippon), failed to show that Ciba-Geigy had possession custody or power of the wide class of documents sought, and the request was overbroad in scope, parties and time and therefore not necessary or proportionate.