11 Dec 2023
The strike‑out was correct because the claimant's statement of claim disclosed no cause of action against the insurer and the procedural objection about the timing of the affidavit failed because the rule relied upon did not require contemporaneous filing of an affidavit with the summons.
12 Oct 2023
The court found the 1st Defendant liable for the assault and the 2nd Defendant liable for failing to provide an adequate system of work (insufficient practical training/guidance and failure to summon assistance), admitted and relied on CCTV and surveillance evidence to resolve factual disputes, rejected causation for the Plaintiff's shoulder and elbow complaints as related to the incident, accepted causation only for forehead laceration, dental injury, residual right little finger stiffness and partial psychiatric injury, assessed damages accordingly and set those damages off against the empl…
5 Nov 2019
Court found claimant was the respondent's employee on both accident dates, respondent failed to rebut the employment presumption, claimant proved orthopedic and psychiatric injuries causally linked to the second accident, monthly wage base set at HK$18,200, loss of earning capacity assessed and calculated per Hong Kong Paper Mills formula producing HK$830,794 under s9, HK$445,676 under s10 and HK$6,770 under s10A, total HK$1,283,240; interest ordered (half judgment rate pre-judgment, full rate post-judgment) and costs awarded to claimant.
18 Apr 2019
Plaintiff failed to prove material facts and causation: his evidence was unreliable and inconsistent, there was no direct evidence establishing how or from what height he fell or that the defendants’ conduct caused the fall, and defendants gave credible evidence that ladder use was assessed as acceptable and instructions were given that the ladder be held. On those findings, regulatory breaches and res ipsa loquitur were not established and no adverse inference was warranted; claim dismissed.
19 Sept 2012
The court exercised its discretion to refuse a stay under Legal Aid Ordinance s15(4) and ordered the appellant to pay HKD100,000 as security for costs within 28 days (failure to pay to result in dismissal of the appeal) because the appellant had repeatedly sought adjournments, had no substantive grounds in the appeal notice, had been refused legal aid previously, was on public assistance and could not provide security, and the appeal had negligible prospects of success; costs of the application ordered against the appellant.
21 Jun 2010
Judge found the claimant not credible due to inconsistencies, contradictions and implausible conduct; rejected that the alleged 17 March 2006 accident occurred in the manner claimed or that it caused any new or aggravated injury; on balance of probabilities claimant failed to prove liability and both personal injury and employees' compensation claims were dismissed.
9 Jul 2009
The court found that accompanying the waitress from the pub to her usual destination was reasonably incidental to the deceased's employment duties to ensure staff safety, and therefore the fatal attack occurred in the course of and arose out of his employment, establishing the respondent's liability under the Employees Compensation Ordinance.
4 May 2009
The judge held that the two witness statements alleging similar accidents were prima facie relevant to the 2nd Defendant's reliance on the 1st Defendant's system of work and that, after balancing probative value, overall case progress, delay and prejudice, admission of those two statements was justified subject to costs and timetable directions; the supplemental statement was disallowed.
15 Jun 2007
Court accepted Applicant was employee of 1st Respondent and that 1st Respondent was sub-contractor to 2nd Respondent, held 2nd Respondent liable as principal contractor under Section 24 despite absence of formal Section 24(6) notice because principal had actual knowledge and suffered no prejudice, adopted Applicant's earnings of HK$17,400 per month under Section 11(1), awarded Section 10 compensation of HK$200,912 for 433 days, assessed permanent loss of earning capacity at 30% under Section 9 (having regard to First Schedule and s9(1A)) and awarded HK$375,840, ordered Respondents jointly and…
15 Nov 2005
Applying established multi-factor tests and deferring to the trial judge's findings of primary fact and credibility, the judge's conclusion that the applicant was self-employed was open on the evidence (notwithstanding alternative inferences); the appeal therefore fails and must be dismissed.