17 Sept 2024
On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff failed to prove that her injury was caused by pulling the route placard or that the employer breached any duty to provide a safe system for that simple task; contemporaneous medical records and plaintiff's own admissions undermined her account; claim dismissed.
28 Apr 2023
On the uncontested evidence the accident occurred as the plaintiff described; the defendants breached duties by failing to provide adequate training, safe means of access, lifeline/fall arrest and safety equipment and by allowing use of a defective rope ladder; contributory negligence was not established on the evidence; accordingly liability for the accident was established against the defendants and judgment on liability was entered for the plaintiff with damages to be assessed.
26 Jan 2022
The court rejected the plaintiff's account as not credible because contemporaneous medical notes and other records did not mention a slip on sand/mud and site photographs showed no mud; the most consistent explanation was an innocuous injury while bending under a scaffold. Consequently the defendant was not negligent and did not breach occupiers' duties; the claim was dismissed. Even on an assumption of liability, the assessed damages were minimal and offset by payments already made, resulting in no net award.
10 Sept 2019
The court found the slip was genuine but on balance of probabilities there was insufficient evidence that condensation or wetness caused the fall and insufficient proof of breach by JV Fitness (which was not the staircase owner and had reasonable cleaning arrangements); accordingly the claim is dismissed and, alternatively, even if liability existed plaintiff's contributory negligence would reduce any award by 60%.
13 Nov 2018
The 1st defendant breached its duty to provide a safe system/place of work by failing to guard the hatch cover edge and provide handrails or adequate safeguards; the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent; however, the damages awarded (after assessment and deductions) are less than the employees' compensation already received, entitling credit and resulting in dismissal of the action and an order for the plaintiff to pay the 1st defendant's costs.
27 Apr 2016
On the balance of probabilities the court found both plaintiff and Mr Chan were employees, Mr Chan was negligent in operating the tail gate platform, the defendant breached duties to provide a safe system of work and is vicariously liable for Mr Chan's negligence, the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, and damages were assessed at HK$461,020 plus interest and costs.
17 Nov 2010
The Court of Appeal held that the first defendant (the employer) was liable because the system of work (passing under a moving overhead conveyor carrying heavy carcasses) was inherently unsafe; there was no contributory negligence by the plaintiff; the judge below had erred in underrating the injury and in excluding recoverable losses (including sick leave from 2 November 2006) and accordingly increased general damages and awarded compensation for loss of chance of promotion on an 80% basis of the trial judge's figure, remitting certain specifics to the Master for assessment.
16 Dec 2009
The court held that the 1st Defendant breached its duty as employer by providing black bags of insufficient quality and failing to provide adequate training and safety measures; the 2nd Defendant as occupier breached its duty by procuring thinner bags, failing to ensure their adequacy and not providing precautions or checks; the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent; the 3rd Party supplier was not liable because it supplied bags to the buyer's specification and had no control or knowledge of loading/weight; damages were awarded to the plaintiff in the sum specified.
4 Jul 2007
The court found the plaintiff's evidence inconsistent, unreliable and not credible; medical evidence supported the defendant's expert that the plaintiff had pre-existing degenerative spinal disease and had exaggerated symptoms; the task of watering plants with the hose was a simple operation which in the circumstances did not require additional assistance, special training or make the employer liable. Therefore the plaintiff failed to prove breach of duty or causation and the claim was dismissed.
26 Jun 2006
Defendant was not negligent: it had provided safety training and equipment, the plaintiff was an experienced senior courier who knew the correct lifting method and that a safety belt should be used; the absence of a universal mandatory belt rule did not amount to a breach in the circumstances; causation was not attributed to employer breach and the plaintiff's credibility was impaired, so claim dismissed.