Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Training and supervision

Legal area

Court

25 Apr 2025

ZHAO YUXIA 對 HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

[2025] HKDC 649
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2595/2017

The court found the plaintiff's evidence that she fell due to a wet floor unreliable and concluded the accident resulted from the mop-wringer handle rebounding and the plaintiff's mishandling; the defendant had provided adequate training and PPE options and the task was routine and not inherently hazardous; therefore the defendant did not breach its duties and is not liable at common law; the plaintiff's claim is dismissed and costs are awarded to the defendant.
12 Jan 2024

NG YUK CHUN v. AUSTA BEAUTY COMPANY LTD t/a PRETTY HOUSE BEAUTY CENTRE

Citation

[2024] HKDC 82
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI912/2021

Court accepted plaintiff’s account and disbelieved the therapist; found defendant negligent in failing to warn, train and supervise and in maintaining an inadequate user manual; accepted expert opinion that the macular hole was traumatic or materially contributed to by the periorbital suction massage; therefore defendant liable (vicariously and in its own right) and plaintiff entitled to damages awarded for pain, suffering and special damages.
5 Nov 2019

LAM WING YEE v. CITY SUPER LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2507
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI523/2016

The plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant breached its duty or that the accident was caused by any defect in the defendant's system of work or lack of training; the court found the lifting did not involve an unsafe or improper posture and therefore dismissed the claim; alternatively, if liability had been found the court would have apportioned 30% contributory negligence to the plaintiff.
4 Jun 2018

香港特別行政區訴日立化成電子材料（香港）有限公司

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1196
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA627/2016

Convictions were upheld because independent evidence and expert report established foreseeable risks, inadequate risk assessment, deficient training and supervision and practicable remedial measures (eg. light sensor) that the employer did not take; the employer’s statutory, non-delegable duty required taking such practicable precautions and the trial judge did not err in law or fact in convicting.
6 Mar 2017

LAU WA YING v. CARITAS - HONG KONG

Citation

LAU WA YING v. CARITAS - HONG KONG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2885/2014

The defendant provided adequate warnings, training, non-slip flooring and a workable system of work including a cleaning worker until 9pm; the plaintiff's account was found unreliable and her causal case not proved; on the facts there was no breach of duty or causation and the claim was dismissed (also noting compensation already paid exceeded any assessed award).
7 Jan 2013

TAMANG UDAS v. GLOBAL SUNNY ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TAMANG UDAS v. GLOBAL SUNNY ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI732/2011

Court found the plaintiff injured at work on 4 November 2010 while carrying two metal scaffolds; defendants breached duties (insufficient training/supervision and failure to provide information/risk measures) and are 80% liable, plaintiff 20% contributorily negligent; plaintiff reached maximal medical improvement with residual restrictions; pre-existing spinal degeneration warranted a 30% reduction to PSLA and loss of earning capacity and halving the future-earnings multiplier from 14 to 7; damages assessed accordingly with credit for employees' compensation and interest and costs ordered.
19 Dec 2012

LIMBU DHARAMARAJ v. ISS ADAMS SECUFORCE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LIMBU DHARAMARAJ v. ISS ADAMS SECUFORCE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1568/2011

The court found on CCTV and evidence that the plaintiff fell as his right ankle was struck by the manually operated main gate; the 1st Defendant was negligent for failing to conduct adequate risk assessment, provide specific instructions and proper equipment/handles for operating the gate and failed to train guards appropriately; the plaintiff was partly negligent for positioning himself immediately in front of the gate and walking in a risky manner and was apportioned 20% contributory negligence; damages were assessed accordingly and reduced by contributory negligence and credits (EC payment…
19 Jul 2011

TSE SIN YEE v. WING WAH CAKE SHOP LTD

Citation

TSE SIN YEE v. WING WAH CAKE SHOP LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1618/2010

Judge accepted plaintiff's account of injury at the shop front, found defendant failed to provide a safe system of work, adequate training, supervision or any risk assessment in breach of statutory and common law duties, rejected contributory negligence, and held defendant liable to compensate the plaintiff for injury and related losses.
11 Mar 2010

HO MAN WA v. WONG SHUI FUN t/a YAU LEE CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

HO MAN WA v. WONG SHUI FUN t/a YAU LEE CO AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI730/2009

The 2nd Defendant was negligent and breached its duty by failing to provide adequate training, supervision and suitable equipment for handling heavy gypsum boards; there was no basis for contributory negligence by the inexperienced Plaintiff; damages were assessed at specific sums for PSLA, pre-trial loss and special damages, with a credit for employees' compensation already awarded; interest and costs ordered accordingly.
2 Jun 2009

SIU WAI CHEUNG ROCKY v. LEE WAI KWUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

SIU WAI CHEUNG ROCKY v. LEE WAI KWUN AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1508/2008

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Mr Lee was operating the tailgate at the material time or that Multi Express was independently negligent in training or supervision; therefore no negligence or vicarious liability was established and the claim is dismissed.