27 Nov 2020
On the balance of probabilities the driver (Yip) failed to keep a proper lookout and was negligent; KMB is vicariously liable for Yip; the plaintiff was contributorily negligent to the extent of 40%; damages assessed at HK$927,214 reduced by 40% to HK$556,328.40; interest and costs awarded as specified by the court.
15 Aug 2018
Defendants (owner, management and cleaning contractor) breached their duty as occupiers by allowing a slippery liquid to remain on the elevator lobby floor; claimant was contributorily negligent to the extent of 10% because she failed to observe the floor; damages were assessed at HK$359,628, defendants' share 90% = HK$323,665.20, but that sum is to be reduced by prior employee compensation of HK$504,095.63; interest directions and costs reserved.
22 Feb 2011
Leave to appeal was refused because there was no realistic prospect of success: the judge found the majority of tapes were acceptable (only 16.01% required replacement), the defendant had been warned of re-dyeing side effects, the plaintiff's acceptance of limited defect was consistent with the evidence, and a 50% apportionment of blame for avoidable loss was a fair assessment on the available evidence; there were no valid grounds to vary the cost orders.
31 Aug 2010
Leave to appeal refused because the applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or issues warranting appellate consideration under s63A(2); the trial court reasonably exercised its discretion under s23 given lack of evidence of practicable alternative security measures, and the costs nisi was rightly varied to require Yau On to pay Chow Sang Sang's costs from 28 April 2010.
2 Feb 2007
The 1st defendant drove negligently, the 2nd defendant is vicariously liable, contributory negligence apportioned two thirds to the 1st defendant and one third to the deceased, and only specific heads of damages were recoverable: bereavement, funeral expenses, a nominal award for loss of services and accumulation from old age pension; employment, alleged cash and children's voluntary contributions were not accepted as bases for loss of accumulation of wealth.
5 Aug 2003
The judge found on the evidence (27m skid marks, indicators of high speed, vehicle dynamics and credible witness testimony) that the Deceased was entirely at fault; the 2nd Plaintiff exercised the requisite care when emerging and therefore the Deceased alone caused the collision, entitling the Plaintiffs to judgment on liability and dismissal of the Defendant's counterclaim.
4 Jan 2002
The application to try a preliminary issue limited to cause and seat of the fire was refused because the court concluded it would not be just and convenient: the preliminary issue would not be determinative of liability, would not produce substantial savings in time or costs, would cause duplication of witness evidence and might produce delay through appeals. However the court did order a split trial between liability and quantum as a just and convenient case management measure.
14 Dec 1999
Occupier breached the common duty of care because the dangerous, obvious placement of electrical switchgear above a water tank should have been apparent on inspection and the occupier failed to take reasonable steps to check or remedy the obvious danger despite having employed a contractor; the fact the deceased created the dangerous state does not absolve the occupier; deceased held 75% contributorily negligent, leaving plaintiff entitled to 25% of assessed damages, totaling HKD 389,751 plus interest and costs.
12 Mar 1992
Leave to appeal refused because the trial judge gave adequate reasons for differentiation in sentence and plea discount, did not penalize a contemplated not guilty plea, reasonably applied deterrence given the seriousness and prevalence of the offence, and the sentences were not manifestly excessive.
2 Mar 1989
The appellate court found the trial judge's factual findings justified defendant negligence but that the trial judge under‑weighted the deceased's contributory negligence; on reassessment the deceased and defendant were each held 50% liable, and the appeal was allowed to vary the apportionment accordingly.