3 Nov 2009
Leave to appeal was refused because the judge found on the facts there was no dangerous physical condition or unsafe system of work attributable to the occupier; the accident was caused by the forklift driver's control and not by any breach of the occupier's duty, so the intended appeal was not reasonably arguable.
15 Aug 2008
The defendant was liable because it operated an unsafe system of work—assigning a single, undertrained care worker to bathe multiple residents in rushed conditions—which foreseeably exposed the plaintiff to risk; the plaintiff's account and admissions established causation, contributory negligence was not proved, and damages were assessed after discounting for exaggeration and prior ECC payments.
20 Jun 2007
Millions Harvest breached its duty by adopting a system of work that brought hooks to slingers at chest height contrary to the Marine Department Safety Guide; that unsafe system was the primary cause of the accident. The crane operator was in reality an employee of Millions Harvest, so contribution by him failed. There was no contributory negligence by the plaintiff. Damages were awarded accordingly.
1 Sept 2004
Court found the 1st defendant negligent for permitting workers to use the circular saw without its top guard, thereby creating an unsafe system of work; the plaintiff was contributorily negligent to the extent of one third for using the saw in that improper way; damages were assessed for pain and suffering, past and future loss, MPF and specials and reduced by one third for contributory negligence resulting in judgment for the plaintiff in the sum awarded.
11 Jul 2002
The court found on the balance of probabilities that the 2nd defendant negligently operated the transporter with the container lowered so as to obstruct his view; the 1st defendant is vicariously liable and additionally negligent for adopting an unsafe system of work; causation was established; contributory negligence was not proven; damages were assessed for bereavement, funeral expenses, pre- and post-trial dependency and loss of accumulation, with deduction for prior employees' compensation and a reduction of interest for unexplained delay.
4 Feb 1999
The Court found the 2nd Defendant discharged its onus: the crane operator was hired out to the 1st Defendant and operated under the hirer's direction and the hirer devised an unsafe system of work where two men relied on shouted instructions and lacked effective signalling; the operator was not negligent in operation and therefore the 1st Defendant was solely responsible for the accident. Consequently judgment was entered for the 2nd Defendant, and the 1st Defendant (and its insurer/intervener) were ordered to indemnify the 2nd Defendant for sums paid and costs with interest.
12 Mar 1997
The 3rd defendant breached the non‑delegable employer’s duty to provide a safe system of work and proper supervision and the 1st defendant, as principal contractor, was liable for the obvious unsafe working platform; statutory breaches of the Construction Site (Safety) Regulations (s.38B, 38C, 38D) were established; the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent; therefore judgment on liability is entered for the plaintiff against the 1st and 3rd defendants with costs nisi for liability.
23 May 1996
The court held the 1st Defendant liable for breach of duty in failing to provide a safe system of work and to ensure safe lifting gear and compliance with lifting regulations; transfer of employment to the occupier did not absolve the 1st Defendant; damages were assessed on detailed evidence (medical, psychiatric, actuarial, occupational) using a managed‑fund real return of 1.2% with multipliers 13.5 for future earnings and 22 for future expenses, awarding PSLA HK$1,500,000 and total judgment HK$14,791,193.70 after deduction of employees' compensation.
10 Jul 1990
Court found on balance that Chau was an employee of Chiu and that the skip hoist/system was defective for inter‑floor traffic; Chiu had knowledge, daily supervision and sufficient control to attract occupier liability and to be a joint tortfeasor; accordingly both 1st and 3rd defendants are liable and judgment is entered for plaintiffs with employees' compensation set off and contribution of 50% by the 3rd defendant to the 1st defendant.