Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third party liability

Legal area

Court

18 Sept 2019

FORTUNE GAIN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD v. MASS OCEAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2323
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1849/2015

The TA Actions and AP Actions are materially distinct in issues, facts, witnesses and lands involved; consolidation with a single set of pleadings would cause delay and unnecessary costs in the circumstances and was not required where identifiable patterns of pleading and a usable case summary exist. The court therefore declined full consolidation under Order 4 r9, exercised its power under Order 15 r5 to sever adverse possession issues (AP Actions) from tenancy/third‑party issues (TA Actions), stayed overlapping tenancy parts of HCA691 and HCA694 without prejudice to claims in the TA Actions…
24 Nov 2011

CHINA TAIPING INSURANCE (HK) CO LTD v. TANG TZE WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA TAIPING INSURANCE (HK) CO LTD v. TANG TZE WAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP149/2010

Because the engine of the accident vehicle differed from that in the VRD and proposal such that the vehicle registered in the VRD did not exist at the time the proposal was made, there was a common mistake voiding the policy ab initio; therefore no policy covered the accident vehicle and the insurer was not liable under s10(1); the alternative s10(3) avoidance was unnecessary and refused.
12 Aug 2008

WING LUNG INSURANCE CO LTD v. KONG YAU CHOI

Citation

WING LUNG INSURANCE CO LTD v. KONG YAU CHOI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP967/2008

On uncontroverted evidence the insured omitted and misrepresented material motoring convictions and a disqualification when applying for the Policy; those matters were material to underwriting and therefore, as a matter of law under section 10(3) Cap 272, the Policy is avoidable and a declaration to that effect must be granted to protect the insurer from third party liability.
4 Apr 2003

Re B+B CONSTRUCTION CO.LTD.

Citation

Re B+B CONSTRUCTION CO.LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW114/2001

Leave was granted because the claim involved highly technical and potentially fraudulent issues requiring full litigation/arbitration with expert evidence and cross-examination; the existence of local and probable global insurance cover meant costs and any judgment were likely to be funded so the company's limited assets would not be unduly prejudiced; the liquidators had delayed adjudication and were not demonstrably better placed to resolve the matter fairly and expeditiously.
18 Sept 2002

ROSSINGTON INVESTMENTS LTD v. LAM PING KWONG & ANOTHER

Citation

ROSSINGTON INVESTMENTS LTD v. LAM PING KWONG & ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV185/2002

The trial judge accepted on the balance of probabilities that the HK$1,300,000 payment was part payment of an agreed commission rather than a loan, relying on documentary entries, bank records and the overall credibility assessment; the Court of Appeal declined to disturb those findings as not plainly wrong and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the defendant.
10 Dec 2001

Full Rich Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Chan Wai Leung and Another

Citation

Full Rich Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Chan Wai Leung and Another
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC786/2001

Section 25 must be read as permitting the injured employee to pursue common law damages against a third party and permitting the employer to recover by joining the employee's action or by instituting a separate common law action; it does not authorize an employer to commence a separate employees compensation application against a third party to seek indemnity. Therefore the present application discloses no cause of action and must be struck out.
29 Apr 1999

SUPER KEEN INVESTMENTS LTD v. GLOBAL TIME INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

SUPER KEEN INVESTMENTS LTD v. GLOBAL TIME INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV346/1998

The Third Party failed to provide any evidence that it could not procure financial assistance externally; accordingly the court properly exercised its residual discretion to order security for costs totalling $3.25M (allocated $1.8M to Plaintiff and $1.45M to Defendant), to be paid into court by 10 July 1999, and ordered costs against the Third Party.
14 Jan 1992

NICK GARMENT FACTORY LTD. v. WINDA WINDA LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

NICK GARMENT FACTORY LTD. v. WINDA WINDA LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1551/1989

The court found a valid contract between plaintiffs and defendants; plaintiffs were not liable for failure to deliver the remaining quota because they undertook only to make as many garments as they could, but plaintiffs must pay for the material supplied for the additional 750 dozen under their bargain; Law and Main Century are not liable as manufacturers or agents; alleged compromise at the washing-factory was not binding on plaintiffs. Judgment for plaintiffs for HK$238,103.18 plus interest and costs nisi.
12 Mar 1976

LEE SHUET-LING AND OTHERS v. LAI MING-LEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE SHUET-LING AND OTHERS v. LAI MING-LEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2339/1974

The collision was caused solely by the negligence of the 1st defendant who followed too closely and pulled out from behind a van such that he could not avoid striking the stationary vehicle; the third party was not negligent; the deceased was not negligent in parking or lighting; the transcript of the absent witness was admissible under the Evidence Ordinance and Evidence (Hearsay) Rules; damages were assessed and awarded accordingly.
8 Mar 1974

WILLIAM J. ORAM v. CHINA MOTOR BUS CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WILLIAM J. ORAM v. CHINA MOTOR BUS CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1828/1973

The minibus driver and the omnibus driver were both negligent in participating in an overtaking manoeuvre on a blind bend; the plaintiff was not negligent; liability is apportioned 60% to the third parties and 40% to the defendant; damages to be assessed subsequently.