The High Court dismissed a construction worker’s claim for damages after he alleged that a canvas strap failed, causing him to fall while stabilizing a hammer.

The court found no evidence that the strap was inherently unsafe or that the defendant had breached its duty of care. 

The plaintiff was responsible for securing the strap himself. 

The claim was dismissed, with costs awarded against the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's personal injury claim against a fast-food chain, finding her account of the alleged accident wholly unreliable. 

The plaintiff, a dishwasher, claimed she slipped while dragging a pot of water, injuring her back.

The court noted a lack of contemporaneous records and inconsistencies in her testimony, particularly regarding pre-existing back issues. 

Although the court hypothetically assessed damages, it applied a 95% discount due to pre-existing degenerative conditions. 

The plaintiff’s lawyer was also criticized for submitting excessive medical receipts, leading to disallowed costs.

The plaintiff, a motorcyclist, was hit by the defendant’s car at an intersection, suffering multiple fractures and permanent disability. 

The plaintiff argued that the defendant had violated traffic rules by failing to yield and proceeding on a yellow light.

The court ruled that the defendant was negligent for driving carelessly but also found the plaintiff partially at fault for not slowing down sufficiently. 

Liability was apportioned 95% to the defendant and 5% to the plaintiff under contributory negligence. 

The plaintiff was awarded damages for medical expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering.

This case underscores the legal consequences of negligent driving and the principle of shared fault in traffic accidents.

A passenger slipped and fell on a wet floor inside an MTR station and sued the MTR Corporation for breaching its duty of care by failing to ensure passenger safety.

The court found that the MTR had not placed sufficient warning signs or properly addressed the slippery floor, constituting negligence. 

The MTR was held liable and ordered to compensate the passenger. 

This case reinforces the legal responsibility of public transport operators to ensure passenger safety.

A renovation worker fell from a suspended platform while working in a shopping mall and sued the mall owner for negligence, alleging a failure to provide a safe working environment and proper supervision of subcontractors’ high-altitude work arrangements.

The defendant argued that the contractor was responsible for the work, absolving them of liability. 

The court ruled that the mall owner had a fundamental duty to ensure subcontractors implemented proper safety measures and found the defendant negligent.

 However, the plaintiff was also partially at fault for not taking sufficient personal safety precautions. 

The court reduced the compensation under the principle of contributory negligence.

This case highlights that property owners, even if not direct employers, must ensure the safety of workers on their premises.

A passenger was injured when the bus they were riding braked suddenly and collided with the vehicle in front. 

Subsequently, a minibus rear-ended the bus. 

The passenger sustained injuries requiring prolonged medical treatment, resulting in high medical expenses and lost income due to an inability to work.

In such cases, the bus driver, minibus driver, bus owner, and minibus owner may bear legal liability for the passenger’s losses. 

A professional legal team can help the injured passenger claim rightful compensation, ensuring they are not unfairly burdened by others’ negligence.

The High Court ordered a mother to pay HK$660,000 in legal costs to the father after she unilaterally retained their daughter in Crimea following a 2018 vacation, refusing to return her to Hong Kong for five years.

The court rejected her argument that the father’s conduct justified withholding the child, stressed that child retention is unacceptable in resolving disputes, and deducted the costs from the sale proceeds of her property.

The Court of Appeal discharged an injunction barring the respondent (ex-husband) from leaving Hong Kong, ruling it disproportionately infringed his right to freedom of movement (Article 31, Basic Law), and his common law right to work.

The court criticized the lower court for undervaluing these rights and noted the prolonged enforcement process could hinder his ability to pay the petitioner.

The Court of Appeal revoked a relocation order allowing a mother to move her child to Singapore, citing that prematurity and lack of certainty (exacerbated by COVID-19 travel restrictions), deviation from expert advice (a child psychologist’s recommendations were overlooked), and unsecured plans regarding finances, housing, and the mother’s relationship in Singapore.

The court emphasized the trial judge’s failure to comprehensively assess the child’s welfare but left room for the mother to reapply with a more viable proposal.

The District Court ordered the petitioner (husband) to pay the respondent (wife) HK$17,500/month in interim maintenance during divorce proceedings, despite both parties facing financial difficulties due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The wife, a flight attendant, had reduced income, while the husband claimed insufficient rental income from his properties. 

The court rejected his plea of financial inability, ruling his rental earnings could cover reasonable expenses. 

The award addressed the wife’s monthly shortfall.

In a landmark decision for Hong Kong’s LGBTQ+ community, the High Court granted joint custody, care, and control to a same-sex co-parent (the respondent) in a divorce case.

The applicant (the biological mother) sought the order to ensure the respondent’s continued parental rights post-separation. 

The court recognized the respondent as a “natural” parent based on her psychological and social role in the children’s lives. 

Emphasizing the children’s best interests, the court noted their close bond with both mothers and the potential harm of distinguishing between their parental roles.

This ruling demonstrates the judiciary’s willingness to use existing laws to advance equality, even absent specific legislation for same-sex parental rights.

In a divorce case, the Hong Kong Family Court ordered two young children (aged 7 and 3) to permanently relocate to Singapore with their father, rejecting the mother’s application to move them to Dongguan, China.

The court considered the father’s financially sustainable relocation plan, the children’s Singaporean citizenship, and the father’s willingness to facilitate the mother’s involvement in their lives.

The mother’s relocation plan was deemed financially uncertain, and the court noted her failure to correct the children’s misconceptions about their father, as well as her limited time due to work commitments. 

Although the daughter expressed a preference to live with her mother, the court gave this limited weight due to her young age and misunderstanding of the circumstances.