Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Supervision

  • 17 Jun 2019

    C, OKA v. R, MTP

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 155
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP180/2017

    Relocation to Japan was permitted after the end of the summer school term because the court found it in the child's best interests given the overall facts; due to the mother's likely breach of her no-alcohol undertaking and non-compliance with breathalyser testing, the court varied access post-relocation to remote weekday contact at set times and supervised daytime monthly and holiday access with the mother's direct access restricted to supervised daytime only.

  • 23 Feb 2017

    NAV v. JTMW

    Citation
    NAV v. JTMW
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC4191/2012

    Sole custody, care and control of the two children is granted to the father (respondent JTMW) as being in the children's best interests on the evidence of social work and clinical reports and the children's consistent views; direct physical access is inappropriate at present and the mother (NAV) is limited to indirect electronic contact (two emails per week plus occasional electronic cards) with supervision and monitoring by Social Welfare Department for 24 months; temporary holiday removal arrangement (trips up to 14 days, no more than 4 trips per year) is continued; expired Country A passpo…

  • 5 Nov 2013

    LO WAI SHING v. LIK SANG ENGINEERING CO LTD

    Citation
    LO WAI SHING v. LIK SANG ENGINEERING CO LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCPI15/2012

    Defendant breached its duty by failing to provide an adequate system for handling and storing wooden wedges and by failing to supervise and enforce safety measures, and by permitting unloading on rough ground; those failures caused the plaintiff's fall and injury; plaintiff held contributorily negligent at 25% so damages reduced accordingly.

  • 10 Sept 2007

    S v. Z

    Citation
    S v. Z
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14535/2005

    Sole custody awarded to the father because the paramount consideration (children's welfare) requires maintenance of the effective status quo, parents lack reasonable prospect of cooperation for joint custody, the mother has a documented pattern of harassment and instability with risk of recurrence, the children expressed preference for certainty and the father can provide structured daily care; care and control is shared in practice by whoever has physical care at the time; arrangements to be supervised by Social Welfare for 12 months and mother to receive funded therapy.

  • 12 Sept 2006

    TAM KAM HOI v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

    Citation
    TAM KAM HOI v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCPI155/2005

    The action was dismissed because the court found CSD had exercised reasonable supervision (CCTV and staff presence), the Plaintiff had impliedly accepted the risks of bodily contact in a sporting contest, the Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that CSD caused the collision due to lack of evidence identifying the cause, and credible evidence established that medical treatment had been provided.

  • 21 Mar 2006

    LINFIELD LTD v. TAOHO DESIGN ARCHITECTS LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    LINFIELD LTD v. TAOHO DESIGN ARCHITECTS LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV313/2004

    The Court held that under the Buildings Ordinance and Regulations the RSE's duties are confined to structural elements that sustain and transmit loads; cladding is an architectural, non‑load bearing finish and responsibility for its selection, preparation and installation lies with the architect and contractor/subcontractor; the RSE was not negligent for failing to assess practical buildability of a design that was physically possible nor for not supervising cladding installation beyond structural fixings, and the appeal against the dismissal of the claim against the RSE was therefore dismiss…

  • 24 Dec 1998

    KEUNG PING SING v. HONG KONG AIR TERMINAL SERVICES LTD.

    Citation
    KEUNG PING SING v. HONG KONG AIR TERMINAL SERVICES LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCPI373/1996

    Defendant breached its duty by failing to provide a safe system of work and adequate supervision (the common practice of standing on a movable dolly to reach the container was known and condoned); the breach caused the plaintiff's injuries and there was no contributory negligence, therefore judgment for the plaintiff for the agreed damages.