Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Workplace safety regulations

Legal area

Court

19 Dec 2022

香港特別行政區訴駿輝建築有限公司

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3769
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA87/2021

Regulation 51(1) is sufficiently clear: it criminalises leaving or using timber or materials on a construction site if protruding nails would pose a danger to workers employed at the site; on the facts the F unit was part of the construction site, contained timber with protruding nails accessible to workers and lacked protective measures, so the contractor's conviction was properly sustained.
7 Nov 2022

香港特別行政區訴香港工商清潔服務有限公司

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3362
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA153/2022

The appeal is allowed and the conviction quashed because the trial judge's manner and extent of questioning crossed the permissible bounds and created a perception that he had joined the adversarial role, thereby rendering the trial unfair and the conviction unsafe; this procedural unfairness alone justified overturning the conviction notwithstanding the underlying evidential issues about safety systems.
5 Oct 2022

香港特別行政區訴永興聯合建築有限公司

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3052
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA224/2020

上訴被駁回，因為裁判官的事實發現（工人實際於照片所示的位置工作、照片與現場觀察支持該發現）及對證人可信性的評價在證據基礎上合理，上訴人未能指出任何足以使上訴庭干預的合情理或法律錯誤，故維持依建築地盤(安全)規例之定罪。
11 Aug 2022

LAI FOR YAU v. GAMMON CONSTRUCTION LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 858
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2576/2019

Court accepted plaintiff's contemporaneous evidence and photos, rejected defendant's uncorroborated account and hearsay evidence, found defendant breached common law and statutory duties by failing to provide safe plant or system of work and by instructing employee to work at height without ladder/platform; drew adverse inference for failure to call key witnesses; assessed contributory negligence at 10%; quantified damages and entered judgment for plaintiff for HK$1,206,919 plus interest and costs.
16 Aug 2019

LAI YAU TAI v. MORAL ACCORD LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1111
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI22/2015

The court found the accident resulted from the plaintiff straying into the container's path (contributory negligence) and from the crane operator's failure to ensure the container was hoisted to a safe height; employers (1st and 2nd defendants) were not liable given compliance with safety regulations and lack of evidence of inadequate supervision, and liability was apportioned 60% to the plaintiff and 40% to the 3rd defendant.
7 Mar 2011

RAI RANA MAGAR PABITRA AND ANOTHER v. PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION (HK) CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

RAI RANA MAGAR PABITRA AND ANOTHER v. PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION (HK) CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI398/2008

The defendants were negligent and in breach of statutory duties (Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations Reg.38A(3) and OSH Ordinance ss.6(1),7) by failing to remove or secure the seat and by failing to ensure the carrier's blind spot was checked; the deceased was contributorily negligent but only to the extent of 25%; damages assessed on the stated heads and calculations produce a judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum of HK$467,721 plus costs nisi and interest to be agreed.
31 Jul 2006

LIN CHIU LUNG v. ILE CO LTD

Citation

LIN CHIU LUNG v. ILE CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1056/2002

The employer (Ile) was negligent in instructing the inexperienced employee to stabilise a load in close proximity to that load without safe measures (eg tag line or control rope); that system of work placed the employee in a position of danger and caused the injury. The claimant was not contributorily negligent. Damages, interest and costs were awarded to the plaintiff accordingly.
28 Nov 2005

MAK KAM BO v. EVER GAIN ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

MAK KAM BO v. EVER GAIN ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI37/2004

Court accepted plaintiff's account that he tripped on small debris and lost balance causing his hand to be drawn into the saw; defects in the saw guard were irrelevant to causation; defendants breached statutory duties (Regulation 6) and were negligent; plaintiff was contributorily negligent to the extent of 20%; damages awarded after offsets and credits resulted in judgment for plaintiff in the sum of HKD 2,376,359 with specified interest and costs directions.
26 Apr 2005

LAM FUK PAU v. CANTON CURTAIN WALL ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM FUK PAU v. CANTON CURTAIN WALL ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI488/2004

Defendants breached statutory and common law duties by failing to provide a suitable safe position or means of support (a raised/appropriate scaffold platform) to allow the plaintiff to plaster the top of the window frame; the plaintiff was, however, 50% contributorily negligent for going onto an obviously unsafe office roof instead of seeking assistance, and damages are reduced by 50% with credit for employee's compensation.
9 Sept 1999

YING ZHAN CHUN v. I.N.H. LTD.

Citation

YING ZHAN CHUN v. I.N.H. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI195/1998

Judge accepted plaintiff's credible evidence, found defendant negligent for instructing use of hand and failing to guard the side opening in breach of Reg.5 Cap.59; transient machine failure was a plausible cause in absence of contrary expert evidence; contributory negligence not established; therefore defendant liable for plaintiff's injury and damages to be assessed.