24 Dec 2025
Leave granted because applicant established a prima facie case that psychiatric injury may have arisen from the accident, the proposed psychiatric expert evidence is relevant, necessary and of probative value (endorsed by SJE recommendation), and other factors (cost, delay, prejudice) do not outweigh the applicant's right to adduce such evidence.
10 Oct 2025
A prima facie case of recognised psychiatric illness manifesting immediately after the accident was established on contemporaneous medical records; independent psychiatric expert evidence is therefore relevant, necessary and of probative value to assist the trial judge on causation, severity, prognosis and quantum; delay and alleged prejudice do not outweigh the plaintiff's substantive right to adduce such evidence, so leave is granted and the Master's decision set aside.
13 Aug 2025
For each claim the court assessed whether the impugned words or events were sudden, unusual and objectively capable of causing bodily injury. The judge accepted the head injury of 29 Jan 2019 was caused by contact with a protruding sign (applicant succeeded in DCEC 2171/2020) but rejected the other five claims because evidence was insufficient or the conduct complained of fell within ordinary school management or reassurance/context rather than an unexpected harmful act, and therefore did not amount to an "accident" under s.5(1). Delay, failure to report contemporaneously and inconsistencies…
6 Jun 2025
The summons for leave to adduce psychiatric expert evidence is dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie causal link between the Accident and the asserted psychiatric injury in light of pre‑existing psychiatric history and prolonged, unexplained default in treatment; alternatively, even if a prima facie case existed the application would be refused as late, prejudicial, and disproportionate to the claim.
28 Feb 2024
Paragraphs 11–17 were struck out because they relate to discrete one‑off acts occurring between Dec 2010 and Apr 2012 and are therefore time‑barred: DDO s82(1) precludes claims more than 24 months after the act and LO s27(4) precludes tort claims for psychiatric injury more than 3 years after accrual; claimant failed to file affirmation evidence to justify extension under DDO s82(3) or LO s30, so the court would not exercise its discretion to allow the out‑of‑time claims; consequently paras 11–17 are struck and claimant granted leave to amend ACNOC except for paras 40A and 40B.
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…
18 Sept 2023
The court found the plaintiff had grossly exaggerated symptoms and to a significant extent malingered; on the medical evidence and surveillance the plaintiff at most has mild residual shoulder ache on prolonged exertion; 70% of the shoulder condition was attributable to the Accident (30% to pre-existing degeneration); reasonable sick leave was limited to 31 August 2020 with allowance to 20 October 2020 to seek employment; the plaintiff is capable of returning to her pre-accident job; awarded PSLA $200,000 discounted 30% to $140,000; awarded pre-trial loss of earnings and MPF $502,320; medical…
17 May 2023
On balance of probabilities the plaintiff slipped and fell on staircase No.1 on 12 November 2016 due to a wet surface (water); the defendants as occupiers/employer failed to show an adequate system to prevent such hazard and are therefore liable; plaintiff's contributory negligence assessed at 10%; credit given for prior employees' compensation payment; judgment for plaintiff in net sum HK$249,614.46 plus ordered interest and costs; D1 barred from denying occurrence inconsistent with prior consent interlocutory judgment.
5 May 2023
Court accepted the unchallenged expert opinions of Dr Tsoi and Dr Ho that the Accident caused the plaintiff’s left shoulder synovial chondromatosis with persistent pain and contributed to Major Depressive Disorder; awarded PSLA at the top of mid-range for serious injury at HK$585,000; allowed private future medical and travel expenses totalling HK$246,000 (HK$244,000 medical + HK$2,000 travel) as reasonably necessary; rejected all claims for pre-trial loss of earnings, future loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity and special damages (gym) for lack of evidential basis and because the c…
18 Feb 2022
The claimant's account was not credible and was contradicted by contemporaneous CCTV footage, contemporaneous emails, and emergency medical records showing no objective chest injury; the claimant gave inconsistent and retracted statements to police and fabricated elements of his account; meetings and verbal warnings did not amount to a sudden, unusual and unfortunate 'accident' causing injury. Consequently, statutory liability under s5(1) was not established and the claim for employees' compensation fails.