Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Workplace safety

Legal area

Court

9 Jul 2024

香港特別行政區訴林哲強

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2410
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA70/2023

Trial judge’s factual findings that the injured worker was instructed to perform elevated work, was provided only a wooden ladder, no helmet, no supervision and that the wooden ladder was unsuitable were open to the judge on the evidence; inconsistencies in the witness account were minor and explicable by injury and memory loss; appellant’s expert evidence depended on assumptions unsupported by the record; on the total evidence the prosecution proved the statutory breaches beyond reasonable doubt and the convictions were properly upheld.
7 May 2020

香港特別行政區訴祥記馮祥建築有限公司

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 477
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA266/2019

Trial judge's factual findings and credibility determinations established that the rebar and other site features did not constitute adequate guardrails or reliable anchorages at the photographed locations, the tested report D19 did not tie tested points to those locations, protective spray was inadequate, access routes lacked appropriate guardrails and on‑site supervision failed to ensure belts were worn; consequently the appellant failed to take adequate and reasonably practicable steps required by the Regulations and the statutory s38H defence did not apply, so convictions and fines were pr…
11 Oct 2019

余志成對香港復康會

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2447
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI120/2012

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant's conduct or work arrangements caused or materially aggravated the claimant's elbow conditions or that the dismissal caused psychiatric injury; prior District Court findings that the elbow conditions were not caused by employment are binding and dispositive of the core factual causation issue; accordingly defendant not liable and claim dismissed.
13 Dec 2018

HO MAN KWONG 對 LEUNG HOI HUNG

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1511
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1144/2015

The judge accepted the claimant's unchallenged credible evidence, applied the indicia test from Poon Chau Nam to find an employer‑employee relationship, found the accident occurred in the course of employment due to unsafe working method and lack of safety equipment, and awarded statutory compensation calculated under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance (ss.7,9,10,10A,11) totaling HK$267,969.67 with interest and costs.
18 May 2018

RAI JUN PRASAD v. PACIFIC CROWN SECURITY SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1086
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI214/2016

Defendants (Pacific Crown and Dragages) were liable for the plaintiff's injuries caused by the unsafe system of work; plaintiff was contributorily negligent to the extent of 20%; the right shoulder and soft tissue injuries were caused by the accident, the back injury was not shown to be caused by the accident; damages awarded in specified heads totalling $2,584,553 reduced by 20% to net judgment of $2,067,642 plus interest; costs to follow with order nisi concerning Legal Aid certificate.
5 Apr 2016

HKSAR v. LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS (ASIA) LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS (ASIA) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA508/2015

On rehearing the court found beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, as proprietor and contractor responsible, failed to provide and maintain a safe system of work, adequate instruction and supervision, and a suitable lower working platform; the statutory and common law defences were not established; the magistrate's conduct and assessment of expert and witness evidence were proper and not plainly wrong; the convictions were upheld and the appeal dismissed.
13 Nov 2013

CHAN TO NING v. TSUI YU MING t/a MING TAK ELECTRICAL CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN TO NING v. TSUI YU MING t/a MING TAK ELECTRICAL CO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI849/2009

On accepted facts and the unchallenged Accident Report, the remaining slab collapsed because supporting walls were removed and no temporary support or safe method was adopted; defendants (as contractor/proprietor and subcontractor/employer) breached statutory and common law duties to ensure safe demolition; plaintiff was not contributorily negligent; convictions and contemporaneous official report supported liability; damages assessed at HKD 672,844.20 with specified interest and costs order.
21 Aug 2013

WONG KIM HUNG by his next friend HIU SJU PHIN v. WONG WING KONG t/a 613 DECORATION WORKS AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG KIM HUNG by his next friend HIU SJU PHIN v. WONG WING KONG t/a 613 DECORATION WORKS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI421/2010

On the evidence (including Labour Department findings and medical reports) the defendants failed to provide a safe system of work or supervision and breached statutory and common duties; contributory negligence was not established; accordingly the 1st and 2nd defendants are liable to the plaintiff and damages are to be awarded as quantified, with credit for any employees' compensation and with costs as ordered.
31 Mar 2011

HKSAR v. COMFORT LAUNDRY CO LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. COMFORT LAUNDRY CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA848/2010

The appeal was dismissed because the trial magistrate's credibility findings were supportable on the evidence: there was a longstanding overflow problem, contemporaneous evidence supported a wet and slippery floor, defence witnesses had potential interest and inconsistent testimony, and the medical referral was unreliable given language and evidential gaps; appellate interference was not warranted.
25 Mar 2011

SHIH PIK NOG v. G2000 (APPAREL)

Citation

SHIH PIK NOG v. G2000 (APPAREL)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI832/2009

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the storeroom or system of work was so unsafe as to cause a foreseeable risk leading to her injury; the defendant did not breach its duty and therefore is not liable.