19 May 2022
The plaintiff's statement of claim failed to plead the necessary averments to establish a duty of care owed by the 2nd defendant (no pleaded defect in the ladder, no pleaded knowledge or control by the 2nd defendant or assumption of responsibility), therefore the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success under s63A DCO and leave to appeal was dismissed.
21 Feb 2014
The court found on the evidence that the appellant appointed PW1 to monitor WR2 works with authority to protect the employer's interests; the monitoring role involved active intervention when PW1's safety threshold was crossed; Towngas failed to provide a defined safe system of work or necessary information and did not discharge its s38 onus; those failures established the particulars of breach under s6 OSHO beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction was upheld.
21 Jan 2011
Where an occupier engages an independent contractor and lends equipment which the occupier knows or ought reasonably to have known would be used by the contractor in an unsafe method, a duty of care in negligence can arise to the contractor's employee; on the facts foreseeability, proximity (worker on premises using lent equipment) and considerations of fairness, justice and reasonableness justified imposing that duty and the occupier breached it, so the appeal was dismissed.
12 May 2009
By majority the Court held the 2nd defendant was liable: negligence established because the occupier supplied and permitted use of equipment for an obviously dangerous system, knew or ought to have known the risk, had proximity to the plaintiff who was a lawful visitor, harm was foreseeable and it was fair, just and reasonable to impose liability; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the judgment against the 2nd defendant affirmed (the occupier was a joint tortfeasor in the circumstances).
30 Jun 2006
The Master’s orders were upheld because the plaintiff failed to establish relevance or existence of the broad classes of documents sought rendering the discovery requests a fishing expedition and oppressive; and the plaintiff failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify leave to adduce expert reconstruction evidence on liability (a factual dispute properly for the court), compounded by an earlier binding direction barring expert evidence on liability.
23 Mar 2004
The court found that Citizens Travel, as organiser/operator of Dragon Tour, contracted with individual tour members and therefore owed an implied contractual duty to provide services with reasonable care; Citizens Travel breached that duty by failing to make reasonable enquiries about the safety and licensed capacity of vessels for the Sunset Cruise and by leaving critical safety arrangements to Landmark without adequate oversight, so Citizens Travel is liable for the resulting deaths; the freelance tour leader was not negligent because he was not tasked or instructed to check vessel capacity…
23 Mar 2004
The 1st defendant was the organizer and operator of the Dragon Tour and contracted with individual tour members; it owed a primary contractual and tortious duty to supply services with reasonable care and skill and to ensure safety. By authorizing the Sunset Cruise and leaving arrangements to the local operator without ensuring boat capacity and safety, the 1st defendant breached that duty and is liable for deaths caused by overloading and the illegal upper deck. The 2nd defendant, as an uncharged freelance tour leader, was not instructed or responsible for boat arrangements and could not hav…
23 Mar 2004
The court found Citizens Travel had contracted with individual tour members and, as operator/organizer, owed and breached the primary contractual duty to provide services with reasonable care by failing to ensure the safety of the Sunset Cruise (failure to verify boat capacity and the illegal upper deck), and is thus liable for the deaths; the tour leader was not negligent and claims against him are dismissed.
20 Nov 2002
Engaging an apparently competent independent contractor for window replacement did not impose a non-delegable duty on the occupiers because the work was not inherently extra-hazardous nor was it work upon or projecting over a highway; 2nd defendant was not an occupier; the 4th defendant (worker) was negligent and the 3rd defendant had judgment in default, but the plaintiff's assessed damages were entirely offset by employees' compensation received, so no net award to plaintiff and actions against 1st and 2nd and against 4th were dismissed.
14 Dec 1999
Occupier breached the common duty of care because the dangerous, obvious placement of electrical switchgear above a water tank should have been apparent on inspection and the occupier failed to take reasonable steps to check or remedy the obvious danger despite having employed a contractor; the fact the deceased created the dangerous state does not absolve the occupier; deceased held 75% contributorily negligent, leaving plaintiff entitled to 25% of assessed damages, totaling HKD 389,751 plus interest and costs.