Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proximity

Legal area

Court

31 May 2019

SO KAI HAU v. YSK2 ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 617
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV417/2018

The Court held that Wellgo, through its AP David Chan, owed a duty to take reasonable care to protect persons entering the building from obvious dangers including the unattended BTM cylinder; Chan breached that duty by failing to take the reasonable step of engaging a specialist to assess or remove the cylinder; the negligent acts of the demolition team did not break the chain of causation but are relevant to apportionment; accordingly the trial judge’s apportionment and contribution award against Wellgo was upheld.
31 Jul 2018

SO KAI HAU v. YSK2 ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1803
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1077/2006

The court held David Chan (as AP of Wellgo) owed a duty to take reasonable care to protect demolition workers including the plaintiff from obvious dangers such as an unattended pressurised BTM cylinder; he breached that duty by failing to take reasonable steps (engage specialists or notify owners) to ascertain or remove the hazard; subsequent negligent acts by demolition parties did not break the chain of causation; under Cap.377 the court assessed contribution and held JMK's agreed liability to YSK2 should be no more than 25% and apportioned responsibility between JMK and Wellgo at 70%/30% r…
29 Sept 2017

MAN YUET LING, mother and next friend of LEE TUNG YIN, a minor 對 LAW KWOK HO 及另二人

Citation

MAN YUET LING, mother and next friend of LEE TUNG YIN, a minor 對 LAW KWOK HO 及另二人
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1766/2015

Court found on the facts the activity was a private social gathering with parental supervision, not a Club training session; therefore defendants did not owe the claimant a sufficient proximity-based duty of care and the Club was not vicariously liable; foreseeable risk of ordinary football contact did not, on these facts, justify imposing a duty on the defendants.
17 May 2016

LAM PAK KEUNG v. IP TSZ PING AND OTHERS

Citation

LAM PAK KEUNG v. IP TSZ PING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV151/2015

Lucky Guy, having maintained a significant presence and practical control over terminal operations, loaned the forklifts and knew or ought to have known the system of work was unsafe; it therefore owed the plaintiff a duty of care, breached that duty by failing to provide traffic control/supervision, and on the balance of probabilities that breach caused the injury; the appeal was dismissed.
7 May 2014

YEUNG HAU KEUNG v. YIP WANG KIT t/a HANG PARK DECORATION CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

YEUNG HAU KEUNG v. YIP WANG KIT t/a HANG PARK DECORATION CO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI691/2011

On the balance of probabilities the 2nd defendant did not instruct or authorise removal of the Concrete Platform and the platform formed part of the Building's common area; therefore the 2nd defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. Interlocutory judgment on liability against the 1st defendant stands and damages payable by the 1st defendant were assessed at HK$1,484,708.00 less the employees' compensation award of HK$690,216.48 resulting in a net award of HK$794,491.52 together with interest and costs as ordered.
21 Jan 2011

LUEN HING FAT COATING & FINISHING FACTORY LTD v. WAAN CHUEN MING

Citation

LUEN HING FAT COATING & FINISHING FACTORY LTD v. WAAN CHUEN MING
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV19/2009

Where an occupier engages an independent contractor and lends equipment which the occupier knows or ought reasonably to have known would be used by the contractor in an unsafe method, a duty of care in negligence can arise to the contractor's employee; on the facts foreseeability, proximity (worker on premises using lent equipment) and considerations of fairness, justice and reasonableness justified imposing that duty and the occupier breached it, so the appeal was dismissed.
12 Oct 2009

WAAN CHUEN MING v. LO KIN NAM t/a KAR KIN ENGINEERING & SUPPLIER CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

WAAN CHUEN MING v. LO KIN NAM t/a KAR KIN ENGINEERING & SUPPLIER CO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV281/2008

Majority held the 2nd defendant owed a duty of care because it supplied the equipment and participated in an unsafe system; applying the Spring v Guardian test (foreseeability, proximity and justice and reasonableness) established liability independent of any employer–contractor relationship; accordingly the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
21 Dec 2007

LUK MARY v. HONG KONG BAPTIST HOSPITAL

Citation

LUK MARY v. HONG KONG BAPTIST HOSPITAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI151/2006

On the pleaded facts it was arguable that the hospital, as facility provider, owed a duty to inform discharged patients of the presence of an infectious disease and of precautions to prevent spread to members of the patient’s immediate family; it was also arguable that that duty could extend to the plaintiff (the patient’s sister) given local concepts of family and the pleaded proximity of contact. The claim was not a plain and obvious no‑cause‑of‑action and thus the strike out application must fail.
7 Jul 2004

WONG FUNG SZE AND ANOTHER v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

WONG FUNG SZE AND ANOTHER v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI112/2004

The judge held that the 2nd Plaintiff's pleaded case (and the proposed amendment) disclosed no reasonable cause of action because her psychiatric illness was shown by the medical evidence and pleadings to result from a gradual accumulation of distress over approximately four months rather than from a sudden 'shock'; her attempt to recharacterise herself as a primary victim or rescuer failed as there was no objective exposure to danger or reasonable belief of such exposure; accordingly the amendment was refused and the 2nd Plaintiff's claim struck out and dismissed.
28 Feb 1996

YUE XIU FINANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. DERMOT AGNEW AND OTHERS

Citation

YUE XIU FINANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. DERMOT AGNEW AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV177/1995

On the pleaded facts the auditors knew of the contractual mechanism, knew the audited accounts and report would be communicated to and relied on by the plaintiff to decide contractual rights, and this created sufficient proximity such that a duty of care could be owed; the statement of claim was therefore arguable and the judge erred in striking it out.