Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Occupier liability

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2023

LEE HONG KONG HANSEN v. MTR CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 636
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI850/2016

On the evidence the court found the granolithic floor was a recognised, specified and not objectively dangerous finish, there was no adequate basis to conclude MTR knew or ought to have known of a specific risk to the plaintiff that required special assessment or accommodation, and causation and post-repair complaint evidence did not establish MTR's breach; accordingly the plaintiff's claim fails on liability and is dismissed, although the court assessed quantum and applied a 25% discount to general damages for the pre-existing condition.
5 Feb 2016

JIANG ZHONG v. UP CHEER LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

JIANG ZHONG v. UP CHEER LTD AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2047/2011

The court exercised its discretion under s2(2) ECO in favour of the injured illegal worker, found on balance that Yeung was Jiang's employer and breached his duty to provide a safe system causing the injury, and found Up Cheer was an occupier who failed to take reasonable steps to select and supervise a competent contractor and therefore liable under occupiers' liability; Cheng/Ah Loi were not proven to be employers; adverse inference drawn from failure to call foreman Kwok; damages and statutory compensation assessed accordingly with specified sums and offsets between awards.
16 Oct 2007

FUNG LEE HUNG v. THE SPASTICS ASSOCIATION OF HONG KONG

Citation

FUNG LEE HUNG v. THE SPASTICS ASSOCIATION OF HONG KONG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1112/2005

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff was tripped by a floor mat placed by the defendant; the defendant was negligent as employer and occupier by placing a non-conspicuous mat in a passageway without adequate warning; plaintiff was 20% contributorily negligent for not having noticed the mat; causation established for low back injury and resultant mild depression; damages assessed and reduced for contributory negligence and ECC credit.
20 Apr 2007

SIN FU YAU v. CHEUNG KWOK LEUNG KEITH AND OTHERS

Citation

SIN FU YAU v. CHEUNG KWOK LEUNG KEITH AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1081/2005

Plaintiff's evidence was accepted as credible and unshaken, defendants called no factual witnesses and failed to rebut statutory and common law duties; defendants were 100% liable as employers (1st and 2nd) and all three defendants liable as occupiers and under the cited safety statutes; damages were assessed after rejecting the full sick leave period claimed and allowing a nine‑month full incapacity period then reduced earnings and a multiplier for future loss, resulting in the stated monetary award.
12 Feb 2007

HKSAR v. CHINA OVERSEAS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. CHINA OVERSEAS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA448/2006

Section 7 is limited to the physical safety of the premises, access/egress and plant/substances and does not extend to regulation of systems of work; because the magistrate made no finding that the physical premises were unsafe, the appellant could not be convicted under s7 and the conviction was quashed.
8 Jul 2002

CHAN YAN NAM v. HUI KA MING TRADING AS KAR LEE ENGINEERING AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN YAN NAM v. HUI KA MING TRADING AS KAR LEE ENGINEERING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1169/2000

The 1st defendant breached statutory duties under the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations (Regs 38A(1) and 38B) by failing to ascertain and ensure the lower platform was safe; accordingly the 1st defendant is liable for the plaintiff's injuries. The 2nd and 3rd defendants are not liable because the plaintiff went onto an outbuilding roof/platform without invitation or license from them and they lacked knowledge that someone would go onto that structure (trespasser standard applies). Plaintiff's contributory negligence assessed at 50% for failing to take reasonable steps for his own safety…
16 Mar 2000

BARRY KEITH WOOD v. WAH TUNG (E&M) LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

BARRY KEITH WOOD v. WAH TUNG (E&M) LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1004/1998

Court accepted plaintiff's and supervisor's evidence, found the defendants were concurrent occupiers and employers who breached statutory and common law duties by leaving an uncovered sump pit and failing to ensure adequate lighting and warning; plaintiff was acting in the course of employment, did not act unreasonably, and neither contributory negligence nor volenti applied, therefore defendants liable jointly and severally for plaintiff's injury.
18 Mar 1997

THE QUEEN v. FUNG SIU PING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. FUNG SIU PING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC295/1996

Passive knowledge of drugs and unsuccessful attempts to prevent storage, without any positive or wilful act facilitating trafficking or storage, is insufficient to establish liability under s37 Dangerous Drugs Ordinance; therefore no case was made and the accused must be discharged.
7 Aug 1996

R. v. NEW BEST RESTAURANT LTD.

Citation

R. v. NEW BEST RESTAURANT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA448/1996

The demolition of the fish tank involved structural works within the meaning of the Buildings Ordinance; New Best as occupier was directly concerned and permitted the works and had a duty to ensure approvals; s.14(1) is a strict liability offence in the public safety context, therefore conviction stands.
9 Oct 1995

BORN CHIEF CO. LTD. t/a BEIJING RESTAURANT v. GEORGE TSAI and Another

Citation

BORN CHIEF CO. LTD. t/a BEIJING RESTAURANT v. GEORGE TSAI and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA781/1992

On the facts the defendants owed a duty of care and breached it by permitting rainwater to accumulate and flow through a known hole and an opening at floor level; the resulting seepage into the plaintiff's premises was a foreseeable and direct cause of the loss, therefore liability for the damage is established and damages are to be assessed by a Master.