Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Personal injury

Legal area

Court

3 Oct 2023

ONUMEME OKECHUKWU v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2535
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA26/2023

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the claimant failed to raise any reasonably arguable question of law: most of the substantive claims were time-barred under the Limitation Ordinance, many complaints were public law/prison disciplinary matters outside the Tribunal's tort jurisdiction, there was no legal error in the deputy adjudicator's handling of witnesses or evidence disclosure, and no basis existed to set aside the costs award; accordingly there was no prospect of success on appeal.
13 Jan 2021

張富金對九龍巴士（一九三三）有限公司

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 134
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA39/2020

Leave to appeal refused because the applicant’s complaints concern factual findings and credibility assessments made by the Tribunal, not questions of law or jurisdiction under s.28 Cap.338; no arguable legal error or jurisdictional issue was identified, and the applicant’s insurance or income do not constitute a legal basis for relief.
18 Mar 2020

LEUNG YIU TING v. MTR CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 460
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1441/2019

Norwich Pharmacal relief was granted: MTRC was not a mere witness given its control of the premises, its role in requesting police attendance, its control over station operations (including escalators), and its role in arranging transport of arrested persons; the Police were not a practicable alternative source for the full footage sought; the footage would likely yield substantial and worthwhile benefits to the plaintiff; disclosure ordered subject to a use-limiting undertaking and specified costs directions.
19 Nov 2012

CHAN KA KI v. LAU SIN TING AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN KA KI v. LAU SIN TING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI900/2011

Because MIB was properly joined and had served a defence asserting contributory negligence, fairness and established practice required that MIB be allowed to exercise the rights of the uninsured driver; accordingly the interlocutory judgment against the 1st defendant must be set aside to permit MIB to contest liability and contributory negligence.
22 Jul 2011

WONG KA MING v. NG YIN KING AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG KA MING v. NG YIN KING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI760/2009

The plaintiff obtained a judgment more favourable than the 2nd Defendant's last sanctioned payment; there were no special circumstances (such as proven dishonesty, significant additional costs caused by discrete failed issues, or unfair negotiation conduct) to justify departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event; accordingly the summons to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed and the costs order nisi made absolute.
8 Dec 2008

MANOHAR CHUGH v. YOGA PLUS LTD

Citation

MANOHAR CHUGH v. YOGA PLUS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1064/2008

The plaintiff established on balance that the accident caused a right calf muscle tear and aggravated a pre-existing degenerative L5/S1 condition producing mild residual disability; however residual disability was mild and not wholly caused by the accident. Documentary evidence was insufficient to support claimed pre-accident investment income and many special expense claims lacked receipts. Applying relevant authorities and evidentiary principles the court fixed PSLA at HK$190,000, pre-trial loss at HK$50,000 and special damages at HK$60,089, totalling HK$300,089, awarded interest as directe…
25 Sept 2006

HO HO MING v. TSEPOWAH AND OTHERS

Citation

HO HO MING v. TSEPOWAH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1168/2003

The defendants were liable because the real and operative cause of the plaintiff's severe injuries was the absence of an independent lifeline and no safety belt properly attached; the employer's duty was non-delegable and occupiers failed to ensure lifeline installation; plaintiff was not contributorily negligent; damages assessed and apportioned 35% to 1st, 30% to 2nd and 35% to 3rd defendant.
24 Feb 2000

LILY TSE LAI YIN AND OTHERS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ALBERT HOUSE AND OTHERS

Citation

LILY TSE LAI YIN AND OTHERS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ALBERT HOUSE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI828/1997

No special and unusual circumstances were shown: minors alone did not justify common fund costs, legal aid had been granted to all plaintiffs from the outset, and defendants raised legitimate non-frivolous defences; therefore the judge declined to exercise discretion to order costs on a common fund basis and limited amendment to granting a certificate for two counsel.
9 May 1990

LAM SUI WO v. LEUNG KAM TIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM SUI WO v. LEUNG KAM TIN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8025/1988

Given the materials available to plaintiff's solicitors, the time constraints before limitation ran and the settlement figure which (including employees' compensation) remained only slightly under the District Court limit, it was not clear to a reasonable person at the time of issuing the writ that no judge would award more than the District Court limit; therefore the High Court should exercise its discretion to allow taxation on the High Court scale and the defendants' appeal is dismissed.
12 Jun 1987

HUI KIN FAI v. THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING

Citation

HUI KIN FAI v. THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP907/1987

The Court granted leave to appeal and extended time because there were arguable grounds: the trial judge appeared to adopt a novel theory not advanced at trial and failed to make necessary findings on danger and precautions; delay in filing the appeal was substantially caused and complicated by the Legal Aid Office's consideration under section 16 of the Legal Aid Ordinance and was excusable, justifying extension of time to preserve the appellant's right to have those arguable issues heard on appeal.