Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contribution between defendants

Legal area

Court

25 Mar 2024

LEE SZE MAN (sue by CHING KWONG MING her mother and next friend) v. CHEUNG KIN WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKDC 458
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI648/2018

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the plaintiff’s account corroborated by CCTV/video evidence, the Forensic Report establishing seminal stains with DNA from both parties, and the Joint Medical Report diagnosing PTSD and schizophreniform disorder caused by the incident. The 2nd Defendant breached its duty by failing to supervise, to implement practicable safeguards and to prevent female residents being alone with male staff, and the 1st Defendant was an employee of the 2nd Defendant so vicarious liability attaches. Damages were assessed on psychiatric injury and consequential…
28 May 2020

TSUI KIN KEUNG v. A.S. WATSON & CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 915
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI508/2015

Claim dismissed because plaintiff was found not credible and unreliable; he failed to prove the occurrence and cause of the alleged accident or any unusual event that would shift the evidential burden to defendants, and therefore failed to establish breaches by D1 or D2 under common law or statutory duties.
14 Jul 2017

YEUNG YAT KWONG PETER v. HARVEST CHINA INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

YEUNG YAT KWONG PETER v. HARVEST CHINA INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3018/2014

It was reasonable for the plaintiff to join and continue proceedings against D1 given expert evidence and timing of leakage; D2 having admitted full liability and having withdrawn contribution proceedings is bound by its acts and must bear the costs consequences; therefore a Sanderson order is appropriate and D2 must pay P's costs of the action against D1 and D1's costs in defending the action, and D2 must also pay P's costs since the interlocutory judgment including reserved costs.
11 Apr 2017

HUSSAIN KAMRAN v. KHAN, AMAR formerly t/a THREE STAR RECYCLING CO (A FIRM) AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUSSAIN KAMRAN v. KHAN, AMAR formerly t/a THREE STAR RECYCLING CO (A FIRM) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV255/2014

The application to amend the Costs Order was refused because the existing order made defendants jointly and severally liable and, under general law, the 2nd defendant may seek contribution (normally limited to 50%); the 2nd defendant's intervention increased the plaintiff's costs and does not justify a court-ordered full indemnity absent special reasons.
29 Jun 2009

ADVANCE PACIFIC INVESTMENTS LTD v. ZEN CHUNG HEI HAYLEY AND OTHERS

Citation

ADVANCE PACIFIC INVESTMENTS LTD v. ZEN CHUNG HEI HAYLEY AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5975/2005

The court held that the representation made was limited to that 'Roof B is included in the Property' and did not warrant or represent the roof's size; therefore no actionable misrepresentation by the 1st Defendant. However the 2nd and 3rd Defendants breached their contractual and tortious duties by failing to make simple enquiries about the roof's area despite knowing the purchaser's interest, and are liable in damages to return the deposit amount. No binding settlement agreement existed. The writ registered as a lis pendens was to be vacated and only nominal damages awarded to the 1st Defend…
27 Mar 2009

KEUNG SHING v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

KEUNG SHING v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI74/2003

The court ordered that the liability issue in HCPI 74/2003 be split from the issue of quantum and be determined first; consolidation of the three actions will only occur for assessment of damages and contribution if the Hospital Authority is found liable, because interlocutory judgments/consent orders on liability cannot be reopened and novus actus interveniens is relevant to contribution on quantum rather than to negate settled liability.
22 Oct 2003

EDWARD MARTIN WILLIAMS v. THE HONGKONG LAND PROPERTY CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

EDWARD MARTIN WILLIAMS v. THE HONGKONG LAND PROPERTY CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI522/2001

Appeal allowed: the 1st defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving the dominant purpose of the loss adjuster report was litigation; affidavit evidence was unsatisfactory and did not identify sources; therefore privilege was not established and the report must be disclosed.
4 Feb 1999

KWOK WAI v. WIN BASE SERVICES LTD. AND ANOTHER and COSMIC INSURANCE CORPORATION LTD. (Intervener Intervener)

Citation

KWOK WAI v. WIN BASE SERVICES LTD. AND ANOTHER and COSMIC INSURANCE CORPORATION LTD. (Intervener Intervener)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI621/1995

The Court found the 2nd Defendant discharged its onus: the crane operator was hired out to the 1st Defendant and operated under the hirer's direction and the hirer devised an unsafe system of work where two men relied on shouted instructions and lacked effective signalling; the operator was not negligent in operation and therefore the 1st Defendant was solely responsible for the accident. Consequently judgment was entered for the 2nd Defendant, and the 1st Defendant (and its insurer/intervener) were ordered to indemnify the 2nd Defendant for sums paid and costs with interest.