8 Jun 2022
Leave to appeal was granted because the tribunal failed to consider a key contested issue—whether the deposit had been converted into a night-driver '墊底費'—and its damages assessment lacked evidential support, rendering the tribunal's decision unsafe.
17 May 2018
Court accepted plaintiff's evidence on causation and credibility except where specific items lacked documentary support or were inconsistent; allowed reasonable repair costs and rental loss for proven periods, disallowed claims lacking proper documentary basis (including unstamped tenancy where required) or where amounts were business/letting expenses; total damages awarded HKD92,101 plus judgment interest and costs to plaintiff.
13 Apr 2018
The court accepted the plaintiff as a credible witness and the documentary evidence she produced. The court allowed only the amounts supported by documents: mortgage payments of HKD 92,692.10, management fees of HKD 24,466.00 and rates and government rent of HKD 8,232.00, totalling HKD 125,390.10, with interest at 8% per annum from 10 November 2014 to the assessment date and thereafter at the judgment rate until full payment; no costs were ordered because the plaintiff did not seek them.
10 Sept 2009
On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the alleged 2005 agreement: objective commercial circumstances, contemporaneous documents showing payments at HK$2,460 per trip, inherent implausibility of the long fixed-term high-rate contract, and the plaintiff's unreliable testimony made the defendant's account more likely; claim dismissed.
4 Mar 2005
Defendant held liable: Tsang had actual and/or ostensible authority and was so closely connected with his employment that it was fair and just to impose vicarious liability; alternatively defendant breached supervisory duty (negligence) and breached contract; plaintiff entitled to recover sums paid to Tsang (judgment HK$660,000) but major commercial loss claims, travel expenses, wasted third-party legal fees and claim for mental distress by the company were dismissed for lack of causation, remoteness or recoverability.
15 Dec 1997
The court set aside only the default judgment relating to the claimed loans/advances of HK$9,059,883.12 because Well-Pro demonstrated a real prospect of success based on the repayment arrangement by deductions and absence of counter-signature for certain disbursements; the court refused to set aside judgments on the quantified loss claim and the unquantified maintenance claim and held the counterclaim barred by a clear deed of waiver, ordering Well-Pro to file a defence to the set-aside claim within 14 days and each party to bear its own costs of the application (order nisi).
2 Jan 1986
Liability was established by interlocutory judgment; on assessment the court awarded general damages of $100,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenities based on medical evidence and comparable authorities (with inflation), awarded $154,800 for future loss of earnings by applying a multiplier of 6 to a monthly shortfall of $2,150, awarded $121,550 for past loss of earnings calculated from the claimant's evidence, awarded special damages totaling $2,000 (physiotherapy, travelling, nourishing food, bonesetter) as proved, ordered interest at specified rates on respective heads, allowed credit…
27 Feb 1984
The court found the 2nd defendant negligent and held that the 3rd defendant and the drivers were employees (not independent contractors) of the 1st defendant because the 1st defendant controlled manner and routing of work; accordingly the 1st defendant was vicariously liable. Contributory negligence was assessed at 40% and damages were quantified as set out in the judgment.