Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dog bite

Legal area

Court

24 Oct 2025

HUANG CHANFENG v. LI YAN CHUN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1767
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI748/2023

On the evidence the plaintiff suffered non-serious but material injuries with scarring, intermittent pain and psychological sequelae; in absence of medical expert opinion the court relied on contemporaneous hospital records, witness testimony and comparable authorities to fix PSLA at HK$180,000; court accepted proved special damages (medical HK$2,050 and travel HK$803.90), deducted HK$2,500 received, and ordered interest and costs as specified.
1 Nov 2022

CHEN JUAN v. LAM KIN SAM

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1202
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI3504/2019

On the facts found more likely by the court the defendant breached his duty by allowing a large dog to roam freely in the living room despite a request to fence it and foreseeable risk of misinterpretation of human conduct; that breach caused the plaintiff’s facial injuries and the defendant is liable; contributory negligence was rejected.
13 May 2022

HKSAR v. SO WAI HANG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1405
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA95/2022

The magistrate accepted the prosecution's eyewitness evidence and the appellant's inculpatory admissions in the record of interview and WhatsApp messages, concluding those proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the keeper/owner of the dog which was unlicensed and not under control; those findings justified conviction under s.25(1) and Regulations 20(1) and 20(2) of the Rabies Ordinance.
16 Aug 2018

TANG YUET YI, a minor by TIU KWAI KING, her lawful and natural mother and next friend v. EUNG MAN CHOW

Citation

[2018] HKDC 985
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1436/2016

Liability was previously determined; on quantum the court awarded HK$300,000 for PSLA based on comparable authorities and the nature of scarring and trauma, refused any award for loss of earning capacity because such a claim was speculative for a 9‑year‑old absent reliable evidence, and awarded future medical expenses and special damages supported by expert evidence and receipts; appropriate pre‑ and post‑judgment interest and costs were ordered.
15 Jan 2018

WEI WEI v. CHI CHIH TONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKDC 55
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI990/2015

Short delay (three days) did not justify permitting fresh evidence in a reply; P Third Affirmation was granted retrospective leave only insofar as it constituted proper reply evidence, but legal submissions and identified fresh factual matters and specific paragraphs were expunged; D2 Affirmation was expunged because interlocutory judgment had been entered against the 2nd defendant, precluding any defence; the court declined to respond to P Second Affirmation as it was not a procedural application under the Rules.
29 Jul 2016

KUMARA DEBANAMA v. LUI PUI WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

KUMARA DEBANAMA v. LUI PUI WAI AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1041/2013

Plaintiff was a trespasser to a clearly fenced private Backyard; defendants were occupiers who had taken reasonable precautions (high fences, warning signs, kennel); plaintiff voluntarily accepted the risk by entering despite warnings; plaintiff failed to prove negligence or that regulation 9 conferred a civil cause of action; accordingly claim dismissed and defendants entitled to costs.
5 May 2016

HKSAR v. MACDONALD, SUSAN MARR SOMERLET

Citation

HKSAR v. MACDONALD, SUSAN MARR SOMERLET
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA611/2015

The magistrate's credibility assessments were not plainly wrong, the circumstantial evidence (only three dogs at scene, only the appellant's black dog free to roam, immediate timing and colour identification) permitted an irresistible inference that Donald bit the victim, and the appellant adduced no evidence to establish the statutory defences under s25(2); accordingly the conviction and fine were upheld.
6 Jul 2015

LO KA YUE v. LEUNG CHUN KIT AND ANOTHER

Citation

LO KA YUE v. LEUNG CHUN KIT AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1562/2012

Judge found plaintiff was bitten at the defendants' premises but plaintiff failed to prove the dog had a propensity to bite or that D1 knew of such propensity; D2 was not an occupier for OLO purposes; although D1 owed a common duty to visitors, there were no special circumstances making a bite reasonably foreseeable and therefore no breach of duty; claim dismissed and defendants entitled to costs.
16 Jun 2014

RAI PRANAYA v. CHAN FEI LUNG

Citation

RAI PRANAYA v. CHAN FEI LUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI737/2013

The Master dismissed the defendant's strike out application: at the interlocutory stage it was inappropriate to strike out the pleaded particulars or to treat requests for the 'basis' of an averment as particulars because such requests seek evidence; repetitive or inefficient pleading alone did not meet the high threshold for striking out; case management and costs remedies (including taxation) remain appropriate means to address pleading inefficiencies.
19 Dec 2013

LO NIN TIM 對 SZETO SO KUEN

Citation

LO NIN TIM 對 SZETO SO KUEN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI919/2012

The court found the physical injuries were superficial and healed without sequelae; medical evidence did not prove that the accident caused the plaintiff's chronic psychiatric condition. Only medical expenses causally connected and supported by receipts were allowed. General damages were set at HK$45,000, medical HK$625 and transport HK$800; other heads including pre-trial loss, future care and supplements were rejected. Interest and costs were ordered as specified.