Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Indemnity and contribution

Legal area

Court

13 Apr 2026

ELIO MARC LUCIEN CASCARINO by his father and next friend DAMIEN PETER CASCARINO v. DR LAU KENNETH CHI KIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1574
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI70/2024

Leave to issue the third party notice was granted because AH adduced sufficient expert material to establish a prima facie case that QMH may have provided substandard care contributing to the infant's outcome, the intended claim was not plainly frivolous, and the prejudice to the plaintiff from allowing the inter partes application was overstated and did not justify refusal of leave at this stage.
23 Dec 2025

CHAN HUI MAY KIU 對 CHING WING FAT及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6428
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1394/2016

First defendant (Ching) liable for the assault on CHAN HUI MAY KIU and must pay damages; second defendant (Tung Wah) owed visitors a duty of care but the assault was an intentional third‑party act which was not shown to be a reasonably foreseeable or preventable consequence of Tung Wah's management such that causation failed; plaintiff CHAN HEI MAN failed to prove she was assaulted; accordingly claims against Tung Wah dismissed and CHAN HEI MAN's claims dismissed; damages to CHAN HUI MAY KIU assessed at HK$56,380 plus interest and costs as ordered.
6 Jun 2025

JUDEA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD v. SUNNIC ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2394
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT42/2025

Given the substantial overlap in factual issues (notably delay, progress of works, and the state of accounts) and the risk of inconsistent findings and duplicated expert evidence, the Court ordered that HCCT 42/2025 be heard by the same judge after the witnesses and evidence in HCA 428/2024 and HCA 491/2024 have been heard or after the issues in those actions are disposed of, subject to the trial judge's directions at pre-trial review, and directed that evidence in all three actions be mutually admissible.
11 Jul 2024

AURUM PACIFIC FINANCE LTD v. T & V INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1798
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA295/2023

No credible evidence of a common intention between the Company and the Plaintiff to create a sham; the Company signed and received the loan and, if acting for an undisclosed principal, is liable; allegations of Plaintiff's knowledge were unsubstantiated; no triable issues were raised that would defeat summary judgment; extension of time to appeal was futile and refused.
6 Jun 2023

AMJAD-UL-MAHMOOD v. PROFIT HILL INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 715
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI534/2017

Legal costs in EC proceedings are not to be included within the cap imposed by the proviso to s25(1)(b) ECO when calculating the amount an employer may recover from a third party; employer may recover EC compensation only up to common law damages (with interest) and may recover EC-related costs separately; accordingly the Court amended its figures and ordered D2 to pay D1 HK$444,446.
17 Jul 2020

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. FUNGS E&M ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCT 4
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA1/2019

Substitution and joinder were refused because enforcement proceedings are prosecutorial in nature and the Tribunal must not usurp the Commission's discretion to decide whom to prosecute; the Pau Agreement, even if genuine, does not prevent the Commission pursuing R1 and does not justify substitution or addition as a party. Leave to issue third party proceedings against Pau was granted because the conditions under Order 16(1) RHC are met (claim for contribution/indemnity and Pau has a legitimate legal/financial interest), bringing her in avoids multiplicity and leaves Tribunal findings binding…
10 Dec 2019

KAN CHE SING 對 HOP ON MANAGEMENT CO LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1576
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI393/2016

Court found on balance that the plaintiff slipped on wet floor left after cleaning (not established as detergent residue), accepted that defendant had reasonable cleaning/patrol systems and outsourced cleaning, found primary negligence in the third party cleaner for failing to dry/warn, held plaintiff 25% contributorily negligent, dismissed plaintiff's claim against defendant, and ordered the third party to indemnify defendant for workers' compensation and related costs (HK$376,403.78) plus interest and costs.
10 Aug 2018

SUPER CRUISE LTD v. COSIMO BORRELLI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1854
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1460/2013

The Registrar was correct that the Summons as drafted sought to strike out a 'claim' under the wrong rubric; Order 16 r.1 governs third party claims and allows issue‑based joinder such that the absence of privity does not automatically render a third party pleading disclosable of no reasonable cause. The TPSOC pleaded arguable bases for indemnity/contribution not exclusively contractual, so it is not a plain and obvious case to strike out; amendment to reframe the Summons was refused as untimely and without merit. Appeal dismissed.
19 Jan 2017

KWONG KIN YIN v. SHUN LEE COPPER & DECORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

KWONG KIN YIN v. SHUN LEE COPPER & DECORATION LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV187/2011

The appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal concluded the trial judge's factual finding that the third party was not the main subcontractor responsible for the work on which the plaintiff was engaged was open on the evidence and not palpably wrong; the 2nd defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving the alleged contractual relationship given the paucity and inconclusive nature of documentary evidence and the judge's permissible credibility assessments.
12 Jan 2017

LEE KIN HUNG v. LAO PAK CHON t/a LUNG KONG ELECTRIC ENGINEERING AND OTHERS

Citation

LEE KIN HUNG v. LAO PAK CHON t/a LUNG KONG ELECTRIC ENGINEERING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI705/2010

Master Leong held that Deputy High Court Judge Lok's order operated to make the third party costs the costs of the 1st defendant and then to make the plaintiff indemnify the 1st defendant; accordingly those costs fall within s16C(1)(b) so the Director is not excused from liability and the plaintiff's application to avoid payment was dismissed.