Tse Tsz Chong v Law Sze Man [2015] 1 HKLRD 1120​
​

• Represented the appellant and successfully convinced the Court of Appeal that s.10(2) Employees’ Compensation Ordinance set out a rebuttable statutory presumption of temporary incapacity during the certified period, and the employer bears the burden to rebut the presumption.  In view of evidence presented, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the decision below.​

 

Wong Shu Keung v Kam Luen Consolidator Limited, [2023] HKCFI 3043

​

• Represented the defendant and successfully resisted the plaintiff’s applications for summary judgment and striking out of the defendant’s counterclaim.  The matter involved numerous proceedings, and arguments involved pleading points re fraudulent and non-fraudulent misrepresentations, application of doctrine of issue estoppel and unjust enrichment.  Eventually the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s applications and made a costs Order Nisi on an indemnity basis against the plaintiff.

 

Chau Yuen Heung v Jekco Elevators Limited, [2023] HKCFI 2750

 

• Represented the Third Parties and successfully defended the defendant’s third-party claim against them.  The matter involved extremely technical issues regarding engineering, maintenance and renovation of a lift, and the respective duties of the lift maintenance contractor, manager, and the owners of a building.

​​

• Succeeded in an argument on operation of s.3(4) Civil Liability (Contribution) Ordinance, that whether the defendant’s settlement with the plaintiff was bona fide in such a context was questionable, or that the defendant’s case in the third party proceedings displaces the assumption under CLCO.

​

Chan Sau Cheung v Chi Wo Contractors Limited & Anor, [2024] HKDC 1788

​

• Represented the defendants and successfully convinced the trial judge of what he described as the plaintiff having “conjured up a series of ex post facto allegations with a view to mounting a sizable personal injury claim against the defendants”, and that the plaintiff’s pleaded case was plainly incredible.  The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed as a result.  On the question on quantum, the trial judge was also convinced to find that the plaintiff had endeavoured to exaggerate his injury and conditions, and that even if liability were established, nil net damages would be awarded.

​

Mohammad Ayaz v Tam Kam Wing & Anor, [2024] HKDC 91

​​

• Represented the defendants and successfully established at assessment hearing what the trial judge described as the “worst type of symptom exaggeration” on the part of the plaintiff.  The presiding judge also made a Costs Order Nisi that the plaintiff should pay all costs of the assessment of damages on a full indemnity basis, as he was convinced that this was a terrible case of symptom exaggeration.

 

Cheung Ka Man v Wong Yu Huen, [2023] HKDC 760; [2023] HKDC 418; [2022] 3 HKLRD 665

 

• In dealing with the question of costs, the trial judge re-established the standard of practitioner’s duty in disclosing relevant matters and documents to the Court and opponents.

 

• Revision of PSLA under different categories of injuries. 

 Yip Lai Heung v 伍炳榮 & Ors. [2022] 3 HKLRD 665

​​

• Represented the applicant and succeeded in establishing liability against the 3rd respondent.  This case is the first decision involving in-depth discussions about the construction and legal principles of s.2(1)(b) Employees’ Compensation Ordinance.

Hong Chun Tak v Yip Kan Kee Contracting Co Ltd & Others, [2021] HKDC 352

 

• Represented the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board and succeeded in establishing the 2nd respondent being a principal contractor under s.24 Employees’ Compensation Ordinance