Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Employer's duty

Legal area

Court

5 Oct 2023

LAMA BINOD v. DRAGAGES HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2541
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI322/2019

The court found the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the alleged accident occurred and, alternatively, failed to prove that the accident caused the claimed injuries. The medical evidence (preferred opinion of Dr Chun) established significant pre-existing degenerative spinal disease and an absence of clinical records supporting an acute cord compression from the alleged event. Even if the accident had occurred, the defendants were not shown to be negligent. Accordingly the plaintiff's claim is dismissed and no damages are awarded.
20 Jun 2019

YAM LAI CHAU v. YAM HING KUEN t/a UNION AIR CONDITIONING ENGINEERING CO

Citation

[2019] HKDC 826
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI726/2017

The claim was dismissed because the two documents relied upon by the plaintiff were found to be false and, combined with pervasive lies and inconsistent evidence from both parties, left no reliable basis to find an employment relationship; even assuming the magistracy conviction could shift the burden, the plaintiff failed to establish breach and causation, so judgment for the plaintiff could not be made.
22 Apr 2015

POON CHING MAN v. LAM HOI PUN

Citation

POON CHING MAN v. LAM HOI PUN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1585/2011

The court held it was bound by the Court of First Instance authority (RTX) and concluded it had no jurisdiction to vary a costs order nisi after the judgment was perfected and sealed; accordingly the plaintiff's application to vary costs was dismissed. The judge additionally stated that even if jurisdiction existed she would have extended time but would not have varied the costs order.
2 Sept 2011

AU MAN MING v. GOLDWELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

AU MAN MING v. GOLDWELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI636/2010

Judge preferred testimony and contemporaneous records of defendant's witness, found plaintiff inconsistent and failed to prove the alleged plant obstruction; even if obstruction existed, defendant had a system of patrols and instructions and the risk was not shown to be reasonably foreseeable or inadequately addressed by Goldwell; primary cause of fall was plaintiff missing a step and not holding the handrail, amounting to contributory negligence (assessed at 50%); accordingly liability against Goldwell was not established and the claim was dismissed.
21 Jul 2008

WAAN CHUEN MING v. LO KIN NAM trading as KAR KIN ENGINEERING & SUPPLIER CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

WAAN CHUEN MING v. LO KIN NAM trading as KAR KIN ENGINEERING & SUPPLIER CO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI591/2003

The court held both defendants liable: the 1st defendant breached his employer duty by employing a wholly unsafe system of transporting the calendering unit; the 2nd defendant as occupier was liable because it provided equipment, knew or ought to have known the transportation system was dangerous and failed to warn or prevent it, and s.3(3)(b) did not absolve the occupier. Damages and interest were awarded as calculated by the court.
6 May 2005

LUK CHUN WING v. INTERCONTINENTAL HIRE CARS LTD

Citation

LUK CHUN WING v. INTERCONTINENTAL HIRE CARS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI73/2004

The court found the Plaintiff's account not credible and contemporaneous documentary medical and employer records showed the hand was caught in the luggage compartment door; because the pleaded cause of injury materially differed from the proved cause and there was no nexus between the alleged systemic employer failings and the door-catching incident, the Defendant was not negligent and the claim was dismissed.
4 Feb 2005

JERRY CHEN v. WHIRLPOOL (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

JERRY CHEN v. WHIRLPOOL (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI787/2001

Defendant not vicariously liable: no evidence defendant controlled Whirlpool Narcissus or Zheng, the car was hired by Whirlpool Narcissus, and the necessary nexus of control/agency was absent; plaintiff's services were effectively transferred to Whirlpool Narcissus making that entity responsible for safety; the contractual term to provide a car and driver is not a non-delegable obligation to make defendant liable for acts of a third‑party driver; Zheng was a reasonably competent driver, therefore defendant not liable.

Hong Kong Case Law

LAMA BINOD v. DRAGAGES HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER

YAM LAI CHAU v. YAM HING KUEN t/a UNION AIR CONDITIONING ENGINEERING CO

POON CHING MAN v. LAM HOI PUN

AU MAN MING v. GOLDWELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD

WAAN CHUEN MING v. LO KIN NAM trading as KAR KIN ENGINEERING & SUPPLIER CO AND ANOTHER

LUK CHUN WING v. INTERCONTINENTAL HIRE CARS LTD

JERRY CHEN v. WHIRLPOOL (HONG KONG) LTD