8 May 2026
Plaintiff failed to prove the accident occurred in the specific manner pleaded; contemporaneous police, ambulance and medical records and inconsistent witness accounts undermined the plaintiff's version; res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable; on balance of probabilities the claim against both defendants fails and is dismissed.
28 Apr 2023
On the uncontested evidence the accident occurred as the plaintiff described; the defendants breached duties by failing to provide adequate training, safe means of access, lifeline/fall arrest and safety equipment and by allowing use of a defective rope ladder; contributory negligence was not established on the evidence; accordingly liability for the accident was established against the defendants and judgment on liability was entered for the plaintiff with damages to be assessed.
21 Feb 2019
D1 was held to be the plaintiff's employer on the evidence (Form 2, contractual arrangements, payroll/attendance records and conduct). As employer D1 breached its non-delegable duty by failing to provide a safe system of work, adequate training, supervision, manpower and equipment for the manual handling task; those breaches caused the Accident and the annular tears/back sprain. There was no proven contributory negligence and no apportionment to D2 was required. Damages were assessed with allowance for pre-existing degenerative changes under the crumbling skull principle, producing a judgment…
8 Jan 2014
The defendant breached its duty to provide a safe system of work (insufficient assessment, instruction, training and supervision for moving bulky objects on an unsafe staircase), which materially contributed to the plaintiff's fall and injury; the plaintiff was 30% contributorily negligent for descending faster than necessary while carrying the signboard; damages were assessed accordingly and reduced for contributory negligence and employees' compensation already paid.
4 Oct 2013
Application dismissed because plaintiff failed to satisfy fundamental Beddoe requirements: provided an inadequate and incomplete counsel opinion and withheld material (notably the insurance policy), there were serious factual disputes (notably whether plaintiff was manager at time of accident) which precluded the court making orders that would pre-empt beneficiaries, alternative remedies existed (arbitration against insurer, third party proceedings) which plaintiff failed to pursue or properly analyze, and the reliefs sought were novel and beyond the court's jurisdiction; therefore no Beddoe…
3 Apr 2013
The judge found the plaintiff's accounts unreliable and inconsistent; there was no reliable evidence of wetness or insufficient lighting causing the fall; the defendant had a reasonable patrolling and cleaning system which met the occupier's duty; accordingly the plaintiff failed to prove negligence or breach and the action was dismissed.
5 Nov 2012
The Court refused leave to appeal and refused extension of time because the trial judge's factual findings that the defendant had a reasonable system of cleaning and inspection and that the slippery substance appeared shortly before the fall meant the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; alleged non-disclosure of CCTV was unsubstantiated and did not undermine the findings; consequently leave was denied and costs awarded to the defendant.
19 Jan 2011
The judge found on credibility and corroborated witness evidence that Keung was the last person in control of the vehicle and left it in a state permitting it to move; that constituted negligence and a breach of the occupier's duty to the plaintiff; the plaintiff's instinctive act to try to stop the vehicle did not make him contributorily negligent; accordingly the defendants were liable and damages of HKD 310,000 were awarded inclusive of interest.
29 Oct 2010
At the first stage the court found there was material upon which a Wasted Costs Order could potentially be made because the pleas against KW appeared to lack any factual basis and thereby misled the court; however at the second stage the court declined to make a Wasted Costs Order because the plaintiff refused to waive legal professional privilege and, given the penal nature of such orders and the requirement to give benefit of the doubt to legal advisers where privilege restricts disclosure, the judge was not satisfied it was fair to make the order; instead each party to the application was…
21 Aug 2009
The defendant, as a restauranteur who directed a customer to use the backyard toilet, owed a duty of care; the manhole cover posed a foreseeable danger which the defendant failed to alleviate by reasonable steps, rendering her liable in negligence; the occupier's liability claim failed on the pleaded basis and potential ownership issues; the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent; damages awarded accordingly.