Lee Hoi Fai v. Js Aluminium Window Group Ltd
|
DCPI 3638/2021 [2026] HKDC 1154 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 3638 OF 2021 -------------------- BETWEEN
--------------------
-------------------- JUDGMENT -------------------- A. Introduction[1] 1.In this personal injury action, the Plaintiff (“P”) claims damages against his employer, the Defendant window installation company (“D”), for injuries sustained in an unwitnessed fall on 12 December 2018 (“the Fall”) inside a house (“the House”) under construction at a site (“the Site”) at Lot No 1909 in Demarcation District No 100, Fan Kam Road, Sheung Shui, New Territories. 2.D is a company incorporated in Hong Kong, carrying on the business of supplying and installing new windows for customers at properties. 3.By an employment contract dated 7 December 2018 signed by P (“the Employment Contract”), D employed P as a senior window installation worker with immediate effect. His daily wage was HK$1,100, payable monthly on or before the 7th day of each month. 4.On the morning of 12 December 2018, being the fifth day of his employment, P suffered injuries from the Fall at the Site. At 10:42, Mr Siu Kai Yuen (“Mr Siu”), D’s assistant project manager who has left its employment, escorted P to the Accident and Emergency Department (“the AED”) of North District Hospital (“NDH”), where anteroposterior (AP) and lateral X-ray radiographs of his left ankle were taken. These X-rays did not reveal any fracture, and no axial X-ray view of the calcaneum (heel bone) was taken at that time. At 12:55, P was discharged with sick leave for five days until 16 December 2018. 5.On 18 December 2018, P attended Li Po Chun General Out-Patient Clinic, from where he was referred to the AED of Kwong Wah Hospital (“KWH”). An X-ray examination there revealed an oblique fracture of the left calcaneum (heel bone), which was visualised on an axial view. Subsequently, P received various treatments as detailed in the medical records which are not challenged by the parties. 6.By writ issued on 2 December 2021, P commenced this action against D. 7.At trial, both parties called two factual witnesses. P called (1) himself; and (2) Mr Lim Yiu Hang (“Mr Lim”), his colleague at the Site. D called (1) Ms Ellen Wen Pao Chu (“Ms Wen”), D’s administrative manager responsible for payrolls, human resources and related financial matters; and (2) Mr Chan Veng Hung (陳永雄) (“Mr Chan”), P’s colleague at the Site. B. Pleaded cases and the issues B.1 P’s pleaded claim 8.By Statement of Claim (“SOC”) dated 24 February 2022, P pleaded that the work which he was employed by D to perform “involved inter alia” (§1.4):
9.The only material plea of the Fall appeared at §7:
10.By Answer to the Defendant’s Request for Further and Better Particulars of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim dated 23 September 2022 (“Answer FBP”), P further pleaded as follows:
11.P pleaded that the Accident was caused by D’s negligence, the particulars of which are as follows[9]:
12.P also alleged the Accident was caused by D’s breaches of statutory duty based on[10]:
B.2 D’s Defence 13.By Defence dated 19 April 2022, D pleaded its provision of the platform to P as follows:
14.D disputed the scope of P’s duties and denied the Accident as follows:
15.While admitting that it owed various duties at common law by implication and under the pleaded statutes[20], D pleaded that the Accident was not caused by its negligence or breaches of statutory duty[21]. B.3 Four issues 16.Four issues arise from the pleadings: (1) Whether the Accident occurred as pleaded; (2) Whether the Accident was caused by D’s negligence or breach of statutory duty; (3) Whether P was contributorily negligent; and (4) The quantum of damages. C. P’s burden to prove the Accident as pleaded and the crucial factual elements 17.P bears the legal burden of proving that the Accident occurred as pleaded, and that the Accident was unusual and which, in the absence of explanation, was more consistent with fault on the part of D than the absence of fault. The crucial factual elements of P’s pleaded case can be encapsulated in two factual issues:
18.In Mak Kang Hoi v Ho Yuk Wah David (2007) 10 HKCFAR 552 (not a personal injury case), Ribeiro PJ (with whom the other members of the Court agreed) held at §102:
19.In Fung Lee Hung v The Spastics Association of Hong Kong DCPI 1112/2005 (unreported, 16 October 2007), HHJ Au (as Au JA then was) accepted at §35 counsel’s submissions at §32:
20.In Lau Ting Keung v Chan Wai Ying trading as Wai Shun Engineering Co [2019] HKCFI 992, the plaintiff (P), a welding worker, pleaded that, while “climbing up to work, [P] fell off the ladder onto the floor and then lost consciousness” (§8(c)). The defendant did not dispute he fell from the ladder and was injured, but disputed “exactly how the Accident took place” (§7). There was no evidence “whether, when the Accident took place, P was going up or coming down from the Ladder [and] from what height he fell” (§33). DHCJ Keith Yeung SC (as Yeung JA then was) held that the “onus is on P to establish his case as framed” but P failed to do so (§42). 21.See also Wu Dip Oi formerly known as Wei Yuling v Harbour City Estates Limited [2023] HKDC 1450 §§26-33, DDJ Walker Sham; So Kai Wing v Sino Estates Management Ltd [2024] HKDC 1829 §§36-59, DDJ Ebony Ling; Lo Kwok Kit Sam v Leung Kwok Hung [2025] 2 HKLRD 1087 §§24-29, DDJ Patrick Siu. 22.In Wat Kwing Lok v The Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Ltd [2008] 1 HKC 168, Sakhrani J held at §17 that:
D. Evidence on Issue 1: whether P was tasked with marking the wall 23.In the SOC dated 24 February 2022, P simply pleaded that his work “involved inter alia” three specific matters which did not include marking the wall. In the Defence dated 19 April 2022, D denied P’s scope of work and the Accident[22]. In the Answer FBP dated 23 September 2022, P mentioned for the first time that he was tasked with marking the wall[23]. P exchanged witness statements dated 3 January 2023[24] and 4 January 2023[25] respectively. 24.Although D never amended the Defence to traverse the matters raised in the Answer FBP, whether P was tasked with, and did perform, marking the wall was an issue properly identified by the parties, who were fully prepared to argue it. The Court should adjudicate this issue having regard to the underlying objectives under Order 1A of the Rules of the District Court, Cap 336H. D.1 P’s evidence in chief on Issue 1 25.P reported for duty at the Site at 09:00 every day, where “Mr Chan (full name unknown)” would assign his work for the day[26]. Window installation involved a six-step process requiring P to ascend and descend Platform(P)[27]. 26.First, he marked the wall through the following procedure[28]:
27.Second[29], P would ensure that the surface of the wall was flat and suitable for installation: for example, by scraping away an unevenness at the window frame connection points. 28.Third[30], the window frame to be installed would be transported to the marked position for installation. For smaller and lighter frames, P transported them by himself. For heavier and larger frames, he jointly transported them with his colleague(s) (同事). The heaviest and largest frames were lifted via machinery. 29.Fourth[31], the frame was lifted to the marked position on the wall, either by P alone or with his colleague(s) (同事), depending on its weight and size. When lifting and aligning the frame, P and/or his colleague(s) carried it up the platform steps together to perform the installation on the platform deck. 30.Fifth[32], the window frame was fixed to the marked position on the wall. 31.Sixth[33], after the installation of the window frame was complete, the glass panes would be installed following a similar process. 32.Under cross-examination, P agreed that he had no qualifications regarding levelling (平水測量). However, he disclosed for the first time in vivid detail how, on a certain day before the Accident, Mr Chan had demonstrated to him once how to use a laser projecting machine to project lines onto the wall and use a coloured pen to mark lines thereon[34]. 33.He gave conflicting accounts as to the content of this demonstration: first, he said the laser machine would project a line on the wall; he then demonstrated drawing two vertical lines on the left and right; but then he seemed to agree the laser projection involved four lines shown as a rectangle. He then said he had forgotten the details of this demonstration. 34.He later gave a convoluted answer as to why he needed to draw markings on the wall: there had already been levelling lines on the wall, but some lines were missing. He said Mr Chan instructed him to draw a missing line “above” for the entry and exit points of the window by reference to the lines already drawn in the lower part of the wall near the ground (跟下面，就攞番上面果個，即係個窗既出入果條線). D.2 Mr Lim’s evidence for P on Issue 1 35.Mr Lim joined D on 5 December 2018. He said that he had to check whether the levelling lines drawn on the wall were correct, and if not, they could not install the windows. In fact, the lines had already been checked beforehand by Mr Chan. D.3 Ms Wen’s evidence for D on Issue 1 36.Ms Wen stated that “the markings on the wall […] were in fact done by professional levellers employed by [D], namely Ho Yick Leveling Co Limited” but not by window installation workers of D[35]. The invoices and quotations described their job as snapping the ink lines for windows (施彈窗墨線)[36], and stated that the relevant work had been completed before 19 November 2018. 37.She gave the 2-page Working Code of Practice (施工守則) attached to the Employment Contract to P. She did not read it aloud point by point, but she did mention that P had to be aware of on-site safety, and explained its headings. It provided relevantly that:
D.4 Mr Chan’s evidence for D on Issue 1 38.Mr Chan said D’s workers were not required to mark the wall[38].
39.He supplemented[39] that the five sets of words, symbols, and numerical figures ― A, B, C, D and E ― shown in one of the 11 photographs provided by the Labour Department[40] were all marked out by the levelling company arranged by D, and had nothing to do with the installation workers. Similarly, the levelling lines, numerical figures and triangular symbol (“▲”) shown in those photographs had nothing to do with installation workers of D. Further, even though the installation of large window frames might require the drawing of additional markings in the upper corners, such work would be done by him rather than P due to his seniority in D[41]. 40.Before the Fall, he instructed P to set up Platform(D) and Guardrails(D) (功夫櫈和圍欄), and he planned to install with P a window of about 20 kg, measuring 1.3 metres x 1.0 metres, identified on the plan as W37 (“W37”)[42]. After giving the instructions, he left the House to fetch tools such as wood shims and a hand hammer[43]. Under cross-examination, Mr Chan said he in fact told P to wait for his return, which his witness statement actually meant; further, he conceded that he did not know whether P did mark additional symbols on the four corners of the wall, and he was not sure whether additional markings were necessary in the House. He stated that he had never asked P to draw anything on the wall. E. Evidence on Issue 2: whether the Fall occurred right after P had finished marking the wall and shaking of Platform(P) E.1 P’s evidence in chief on Issue 2 41.First[44], he was assigned by his supervisor to work at one of the detached houses at the Site. It was his first time entering that type of detached house. His “supervisor [holding a layout plan/drawing] showed [him] where the windows were to be installed”. 42.Second, he gave details of Platform(P) which was “similar” (類似) to the foldable platform shown in Annex 4[45] as follows:
Despite this photo depicting a platform with “rungs” rather than “steps”, I will follow the nomenclature of “steps” used by P. 43.Third[46], he transported Platform(P) to the position where the windows were to be installed, unfolded it, and placed it on the ground. He used the steps on one side of the platform to climb up onto it, and began marking every corner of the intended window positions (在需要安裝窗戶的位置上的每個角落畫上記號). No colleague was around to assist him. He climbed down Platform(P) via the steps on one side after marking the wall. He supplemented that[47], although there had already been markings on the wall before he arrived, those markings were incomplete, so he had to add the missing markings as instructed by Mr Chan; his job included making measurements and drawing markings on the wall; in the process of conducting measurements, a laser was used. 44.Fourth[48], after exchanging a few words with his supervisor:―
45.Fifth[49], P climbed up Platform(P) via the steps on one side to add the missing marks. Afterwards, as he stepped onto the first step closest to the deck, Platform(P) began to shake and became unstable (然後我便沿着可摺疊式平台一則[sic]的階梯爬下平台。我首先踏上了階梯的第一級 (接近平台頂部的第一級)，可是，當我在我剛踏上階梯第一級的剎那，該可摺疊式平台開始搖晃並變得不穩妥。). He lost his balance and fell. As Platform(P) lacked guardrails, he was unable to grab any object to prevent his fall, causing severe injuries. 46.After P fell, his supervisor arrived shortly and saw him sitting on the ground in obvious pain. When asked what had happened, P told him he had fallen (我跌倒了), which caused severe pain in his left foot and ankle. E.2 P’s evidence under cross-examination on Issue 2 47.P depicted the Fall as follows:
48.He clarified[51] that “something was missed; some work was left undone” meant the discovery of a missing vertical levelling line of two to three inches based on his observation, without the aid of any floor plan or photos. He could not remember whether any horizontal lines were missing. He used a pen and a ruler, but forgot the material it was made of and its length, although he said he had put it into his waist bag ― which was about half the size of an F4 box file (27cm x 38cm) ― before the Fall. He did not mention the ruler to his solicitors because they did not ask him in such great detail. 49.P confirmed there was no shaking when he first ascended and descended Platform(P), nor on his second ascent. The longitudinal shaking occurred, when his left foot was about to step on the first step but had not yet touched it (想踏入第一級…未掂到)[52]. He cast a brief look at the first step (望一望), but immediately clarified that he was actually staring at it (望實) when descending. He then lost his balance and fell while descending with his body facing away from Platform(P). 50.P could not recognise whether the photo of window W37[53] depicted the location where the Fall occurred, but he confirmed that none of the markings on the wall were drawn by him. 51.After the Fall, Platform(P) stood as before. He forgot how long he stayed in the room where the Fall occurred, or whether anyone used Platform(P) during his stay therein. E.3 Mr Lim’s evidence for P on Issue 2 52.Mr Lim left D’s employment on 15 April 2019. He was working elsewhere at the Site when the Accident occurred, so he did not witness it. After the Fall, his “foreman” (full name forgotten) told him to go to the House to replace P since P was injured. 53.At the House[54], Mr Chan pointed to the location where P was working when he was injured. Mr Lim inspected (查看) the opening(s) and markings on the wall for the window installation, and also saw the platform from which P had fallen. The platform had three steps on each side, lacked guardrails, and looked broken and old to an unbearable degree (破舊不堪). 54.When he went to the House to work on 12 December 2018, his work was to pass tools to Mr Chan, who stood on the platform, and to hold the platform steady. On that day, when the work was almost finished, he had stepped onto the platform and found that it was not stable, whether one climbed it via the steps on either side or stood on the platform deck. It lacked guardrails, and was unlevel when placed on flat ground. (平台並不穩固，無論是經兩則[sic]的階梯向上爬還是站在平台的上面，甚至只是放在平地上，該摺疊式平台也不平穩)[55]. 55.When working at the Site, he encountered three foldable platforms[56] including the aforementioned one. They lacked guardrails, looked broken and old to an unbearable degree (破舊不堪), and could not be placed stably and levelly on the ground. 56.Mr Lim orally clarified his evidence in chief as follows. 57.He worked at the Site on 6 December, 8 December, and 12 December 2018. It was his first time working on a construction site. When the Fall occurred, he had yet to work in all six houses at the Site. 58.After the Fall, Mr Lim found that P was lying with one shoe and one sock off, having already been relocated to a position at some distance outside the room where the Fall occurred. He might have exchanged a few words with P, but P did not make any complaints, such as that there was anything wrong with Platform(P) (有問題). 59.Mr Lim then entered the room where the Fall occurred. There was no one inside, except a large window frame about the size of a door. He found a platform inside, which was covered with concrete buildup and debris, making it look very worn and dilapidated. He disagreed that the platform he saw was Platform(D) with Guardrails(D) as shown in the photo taken by the Labour Department in February 2019, and he disagreed that the Fall occurred at the location shown therein (W37)[57]. 60.Mr Lim explained his experience on a certain platform after the Accident as follows[58]. He was not required to work on that platform. However, after the Accident, he stepped onto it out of curiosity to see whether it was unstable. He stepped on it briefly, and perhaps reached its deck, but descended almost immediately (踩一踩已經落黎). He did not “go up” the other side, but immediately clarified that he had stepped onto its first, or perhaps at most its second step. He felt the platform shaking while on its deck, so he descended (上到去，覺得已經搖，就已經落). He did not otherwise use that platform that day because he knew it was unstable. 61.Mr Lim said there were only three platforms at the Site, only one of which was made of aluminium. He knew this because he had to move equipment between different houses at the Site, and he remembered how many and which platforms he moved. The platforms bore symbols representing D’s company name, but were not individually numbered for identification of each specific unit. E.4 Ms Wen’s evidence for D on Issue 2 62.Ms Wen did not witness the Fall. She gave evidence regarding her direct encounters with P after the Fall. 63.On 13 October 2018, D purchased two units of Platform(D) and two sets of Guardrails(D) for window installation work at the Site; and she produced their invoice[59]. She did not witness their being used on-site, although she understood that D only purchased these two platforms and guardrails for the Site at that time[60]. 64.On 12 December 2018, hours after the Fall, the following WhatsApp exchanges in Chinese took place[61]:
65.On 13 December 2018, further exchanges took place[62]:
66.On 4 January 2019[63], P first went to D’s office to collect his advance payment. He told Ms Wen “he had no memory of how he had fallen from the working platform”. In her subsequent monthly encounters with P from January 2019 to November 2020 (spanning 23 months) for advance payments, P “never mentioned that he ‘slipped’ or the working platform ‘shook’. 67.On 27 June 2023, D’s solicitors collected the 11 photos taken by the Labour Department during its investigation on 20 February 2019; Ms Wen had never seen these photos before[64]. 68.She filed a supplemental witness statement on the following. 69.First, after the Fall[65], before completing “Form 2: Notice by Employer of the Death of an Employee or of an Accident to an Employee Resulting in Death or Incapacity” (“Form 2”) to report P’s accident to the Labour Department on 14 December 2018, she asked Mr Siu whether he had asked P how the Fall occurred. Mr Siu told her that, on their way to NDH, P had stated that he “had fallen from a height of 0.75 metres at a hop-up platform due to carelessness”. As a result, in Part J of Form 2, she filled in:
70.Second[67], after her first meeting with P on 4 January 2019, she sought advice from Mr Finley Leung Wing Kin of D’s insurance broker, Rightway Insurance Agency Limited, who suggested that it would be better for her to “request [P] to sign a written statement about how his accident had happened” since it was unlikely he could have lost his memory so quickly. 71.Third[68], on 1 February 2019, P visited D’s office to collect the advance payment for the second time. After reading and agreeing that it represented the true facts, he signed in her presence a statement in Chinese entitled “Fan Kam Road Construction Site Accident Record” (“Chinese Statement”), which relevantly reads:
72.She omitted it from her first witness statement because she had “misplaced” it[70], disclosing it only on 6 April 2023. 73.Her oral testimony added that, on 12 December 2018 at about 18:00, Mr Siu telephoned her to report his conversation with P at NDH. When asked what had actually happened, P replied that he had inadvertently mis-stepped while going down the steps from about 0.75 metres (落樓梯唔小心踏錯左隻腳). 74.Regarding the Chinese Statement, Ms Wen saw that P was reading it when she was walking away from the area near the entrance of D’s office to photocopy the cheque P had signed, and she noticed that P was still reading it carefully (認真睇) on her way back, and this round-trip took about 60 to 80 seconds. E.5 Mr Chan’s evidence for D on Issue 2 75.Mr Chan did not witness the Fall. He gave evidence mainly on the work process regarding window installation at the Site or the House, and the events immediately preceding and following the Fall. 76.Before the Fall[71], he instructed P to set up Platform(D) and Guardrails(D) (功夫櫈和圍欄), before leaving to fetch tools. Returning 10 minutes later, he found P seated on the ground alongside another contractor’s worker (identity unknown), who stated, “Just now he got hurt (啱啱佢整親喎)”. P claimed he fell while descending the platform, injuring his left ankle. Mr Chan did not probe further, and P raised no complaints of structural fault or shaking (搖晃). The equipment comprised Platform(D) used with Guardrails(D). 77.Mr Chan notified Mr Siu, who dispatched P to the AED at NDH[72]. His oral testimony added that Mr Siu arrived two or three minutes after being telephoned to the scene. He also summoned Mr Lim who arrived in two minutes to replace P. He forgot if Mr Lim interacted with P, but he noted that Mr Siu and Mr Lim carried P out of the House. 78.Before the Fall, P had used Platform(D) and Guardrails(D). After the Fall, they continued to be used until mid-2020, when they were discarded for oldness[73]. Under cross-examination[74], he disagreed that Platform(D) lacked Guardrails(D) because there was a safety officer (安全主任) who conducted a daily inspection of the sufficiency of the safety measures at the Site. He downloaded its catalogue some time before he made his witness statement, but he did not know whether the picture shown therein was identical to Platform(D). F. Assessment of evidence and findings on liability 79.The parties’ evidence is set out separately under different headings, but it has been assessed holistically having regard to their respective submissions in accordance with the guidance set out by Cheng J in Charm Master Enterprises Ltd v Grand T G Gold Holdings Ltd [2024] HKCFI 2847 §§60-62. F.1 General observations on P’s demeanour 80.From the outset of cross-examination, P proved unable or unwilling to answer simple questions directly, giving convoluted and conflicting evidence, as illustrated by his testimony regarding prior window installation experience. 81.Regarding a 2017 assessment, P evaded the simple question of whether it referred to the “Green card course” (平安卡), stating twice it was a course “of the construction industry” (建造業), and confirming it only on the third occasion[75]. 82.When asked whether he had been taught how to work on platforms, P gave five inconsistent responses[76]. Asked whether his safety course covered working at height, he first claimed no recollection (具體唔記得), but immediately confirmed it did not cover mandatory platform guardrails. He later agreed the course taught safe platform usage, before qualifying it as merely “auxiliary” (輔助性). When asked whether this meant he received no platform training, he replied “barely” (無乜)—a term he admitted he could not clarify (我都唔識答)—before ultimately asserting the course taught no such thing. 83.P claimed he first worked at construction sites in 2017, which would mean he had only one year of window installation experience when joining D. However, he refused to admit that his witness statement clearly stated that he began working on construction sites in 2012. He offered conflicting, evasive responses when asked if he installed aluminium windows between 2012 and 2016, stating: “I was just assisting the sifu (master) with odds and ends back then, because they would not really let me touch them yet.” (喺跟啲師傅執頭執尾，果時，因為都唔會俾我掂住嘅) and “Because he did not always let me touch, how should I answer, I really do not know how to answer, he did not always let me touch, does it count as Yes simply because I had touched it, should I explain like this?” (因為佢唔係成日俾我掂，我應該點答呢，我真係唔識答呀，佢唔係成日俾我掂，定係我掂過都算有喇，係咪咁解？)[77]. 84.While this does not automatically prove P to be untruthful, his testimony must be approached with caution. Moreover, P testified to having worked since age 16, specifically in construction from 2012 until the Accident in 2018. Over the years, he also underwent various assessments and completed training courses. Accordingly, he is a mature and seasoned worker whose testimonial deficiencies cannot simply be excused by a lack of schooling nearly 50 years ago. F.2 Issue 1: Inconsistent and unreliable evidence on duty to draw markings on the wall 85.In chief, P said he was “usually” tasked to draw markings on the wall. His oral testimony, however, revealed that Mr Chan had demonstrated how to draw markings on only one occasion, some day before the Fall, and P first attempted doing so moments before the Fall. 86.As to the markings themselves, P said in chief that he was tasked to draw markings on four corners (四個角落都畫上記號). Under cross-examination, he gave unclear and convoluted answers apparently to the effect that Mr Chan merely asked him to draw “a line” or “lines”. 87.P attributed his belated disclosure regarding Mr Chan’s marking demonstration to a memory lapse[78]. He omitted it from his 2023 witness statement because he had forgotten the finer details due to the passage of time (我都唔記得咁多細節喇，已經咁耐). Explaining his sudden memory recovery under cross-examination, he admitted his recollection remained vague, conceding he was merely reconstructing events as questioned, without knowing if he had mistaken or omitted anything (今日都係模糊囉，我都係而家係度，問到我先靠自己盡量諗出黎，即係諗得到幾多就幾多，有無錯有無漏，我其實都唔清楚喇). 88.P exhibited a similar pattern when explaining his failure to plead in the SOC that he was tasked with drawing levelling lines (平水線)[79]: (1) he twice agreed his scope of work excluded drawing such lines[80], but (2) upon confirming the statement of truth therein, he reversed his stance to disagree. He could not explain his pleading omission (我都唔知點答)[81]. F.3 Issue 2: Inconsistent and improbable evidence on discovery of missing markings before the Fall 89.P gave inconsistent evidence regarding the missing markings before the Fall. In chief, he claimed he omitted a corner mark (畫漏了其中一個角落上的記號)[82], but under cross-examination, he gave various conflicting statements as to whether his duties included marking levelling lines on the wall, before asserting finally that a vertical levelling line of two to three inches was missing. 90.His ability to discover that missing line on a wall without the aid of any plan or photo is inherently improbable, particularly when the wall already had other markings. F.4 Issue 2: Contradictory evidence on whether P stepped onto the first step before the Fall 91.In chief, P claimed Platform(P) shook after he stepped onto the first step, causing his fall; under cross-examination, he reversed this, asserting the Fall occurred before his left foot even touched the step. 92.When confronted with this discrepancy, P initially replied, “frankly, I do not quite understand” (坦白講，唔係咁識理解), before conceding the mistake in his witness statement[83]. He recounted that his solicitors had repeatedly asked him how the Fall occurred, and he had clearly informed them approximately three times that his foot had not yet touched the first step of the platform (想踏入第一級……未掂到). No matter how much he explained it, his lawyer simply could not understand (講極都唔明), adding that he could not remember whether he ever described the platform as having “shaken a bit” (搖一搖)[84]. 93.No legally trained person could conceivably fail to appreciate this basic, material difference. P’s belated accusations against his solicitors are unfounded. 94.As DHCJ Winnie Tsui (as she then was) cogently observed in Pang Sai Yu v Winner Day Investment Ltd [2024] HKCFI 548 §178:
95.P’s mistake on this material issue is wholly inconsistent with the care displayed elsewhere in his witness statements, where he made several handwritten corrections and amendments. F.5 Issue 2: Accident is inconsistent with the Chinese Statement 96.On 6 April 2023, D disclosed the Chinese Statement, in which P confirmed that he “inadvertently mis-stepped when descending a working ladder” (下工作梯時不小心踏錯腳)[85]. 97.P clearly appreciated the Chinese Statement’s significance long ago. He denied his signature in his supplemental witness statement dated 3 August 2023[86]. For reasons obscure to this Court, the parties by consent obtained an order dated 18 January 2024 for leave to adduce expert handwriting evidence on the factual question of whether P signed this document. 98.By order dated 15 August 2024[87], P obtained leave to file and serve his second supplemental witness statement stating in detail “the (post-accident) events of 28 to 31 January 2019”. In that second supplemental statement, however, P merely stated[88] that Ms Wen asked him to sign “MPF and salary” only, but not other documents (MPF及出糧) ― he was silent on “events of 28 to 31 January 2019” apart from certain WhatsApp exchanges on 31 January 2019 whereby Ms Wen informed P to collect a cheque and sign “MPF”[89]. 99.Since P had never served any notice under Order 27, rule 4(2), he “cannot” challenge the authenticity of the Chinese Statement: Silver Stone Development Ltd v Lau Kwong Ching James [2006] 4 HKC 100 §15, DHCJ Carlson. It is therefore deemed to be authentic. 100.Mr Chin (appearing with Mr Wan) for P confirmed during his opening submissions that no issue of authenticity arose in this case. During examination in chief, P reversed his earlier denials, stating that he could not remember whether he had signed the Chinese Statement. 101.To explain his shifting stance, P recounted visiting the Labour Department office in Tai Po, where he refused to sign a photo presented by an officer as the subject platform. When Ms Wen later presented “that photo” on a subsequent occasion, he refused to sign, accusing her that it was a “fake”; she remained silent. Despite claiming a “deep impression” of this confrontation, P later clarified that the photos on both occasions merely looked similar. 102.P used this refusal[90] to justify his prior denials of signing the Chinese Statement, asserting he “similarly assumed” he had not signed it (我就當都係無簽). 103.P’s refusal to sign “that photo” presented by Ms Wen ― even if it occurred ― bears no relation to the Chinese Statement. In fact, D denied ever presenting any photos to P[91]. His assumption of non-signing of the Chinese Statement based on that unrelated incident is illogical. Given that the document had been disclosed for over three years, with its authenticity repeatedly raised throughout the proceedings, P offered no sensible explanation for suddenly abandoning his consistent denials. F.6 Issue 2: Lack of complaint regarding Platform(P)’s shaking 104.Despite claiming to have known at that very moment that the Fall was caused by shaking of Platform(P), P in his testimony stated he only reported this to his solicitors over three years later when preparing the SOC in 2022. 105.To be fair, P apparently first asserted that Platform(P) lacked a “handrail” and it was “shaking”, causing the Fall, in a pre-action letter dated 6 October 2020[92]. His solicitors raised a potential common law claim to D’s insurer, Asia Insurance Co Ltd, as follows:
106.The fact remains that P raised no complaint regarding Platform(P)’s condition across four critical stages: (1) minutes post-Fall to Mr Chan and Mr Lim; (2) hours post-Fall to Mr Siu at NDH; (3) hours post-Fall via WhatsApp to Ms Wen; and (4) across 23 pay collection meetings with Ms Wen between 4 January 2019 and November 2020. 107.When asked why he did not make any complaint on the above occasions, P’s only explanation was that he was in pain and remained unasked[93]. This assertion strains all credulity, particularly when P alleged that Ms Wen once asked him to sign a “fake” photo of the subject platform. 108.Consistent with the narrative in the Chinese Statement, the medical report of the AED of NDH dated 17 July 2021 specifically reported that a doctor at 11:22 on 12 December 2018 attended to P who “slipped and fell when walking down the ladder at ~1m height”[94]: see similar description of the Fall in the contemporaneous medical note dated 12 December 2018 at 10:43[95]. The medical records consistently stated that P “fell from ladder”[96] without mentioning any mechanical or structural problems of Platform(P). F.7 Issue 2: Whether Platform(P) was used by Mr Lim after the Fall 109.Although Mr Lim testified to standing on a platform after the Fall, it remains unclear whether this was Platform(P). 110.First, Mr Lim disagreed that the Fall occurred at W37, claiming he was tasked to install a door-size window frame after the Fall. However, P could not remember the location of the Fall and the window involved; and he never mentioned that door-sized window frame. In contrast, Mr Chan gave direct evidence that he was about to install W37, measuring 1.3 metres x 1.0 metres. 111.Second, Mr Lim’s testimony that only three platforms ― one being aluminium ― were on-site must be approached with caution. As he had not worked across all six houses prior to the Fall, his knowledge was likely conflated with his experience after the Fall. 112.Third, Mr Lim said in chief that he saw the platform from which P fell, and he seemed to suggest that, after the Accident, Mr Chan stood on that platform while he was manually holding it steady, and he later climbed up from both of its sides and found it to be unstable. Under cross-examination, he said he never used that platform that day because he knew it was unstable. While he did not directly contradict himself by saying that Mr Chan did not use the platform, that introduced some uncertainty as to whether the platform he referred to was Platform(P) and it was indeed used after the Accident. 113.Fourth, aside from a shared lack of guardrails, the platform described by Mr Lim differs materially from Platform(P). Mr Lim characterised his platform as “broken and old” with heavy concrete buildup, features which P never mentioned. Furthermore, Mr Lim found his platform immediately unstable upon stepping onto it post-accident; in contrast, P had successfully ascended it twice and descended once prior to the Fall without noticing any instability, and it stood as original after the Fall. F.8 Conclusion on liability 114.For the above reasons, P fails to prove that the Accident occurred as pleaded ― namely, that Platform(P) shook when he stepped onto its first step after marking the wall, causing the Fall. This action is therefore dismissed. If necessary, I would find that Mr Chan instructed P to wait for his return rather than mark the wall in his absence; and the Fall was caused by P’s inadvertent mis-stepping while descending Platform(D) with Guardrails(D). 115.The following sections are not strictly necessary but are included for completeness. G. Whether the Accident was caused by D’s negligence or breaches of statutory duty 116.The relevant principles on employer liability in this context are summarised by DDJ Patrick Siu in Lo Kwok Kit Sam v Leung Kwok Hung [2025] 2 HKLRD 1087 §45:
117.In Lui Kin Wai v Active Engineering Ltd DCPI 594/2008 (unreported, 12 November 2009), having found that the plaintiff failed to prove he fell and was injured as pleaded, HHJ Chan held that even if he fell from a staircase because he “stepped on air” (mis-stepped) and lost his balance when he was inspecting a carpark ceiling (§18), it was cause by his own lack of care (§28):―
118.On the basis that the Fall was caused by P’s mis-stepping on Platform(D) with Guardrails(D) (see Section F.8), D is not liable for negligence or breach of statutory duty. 119.Assuming in P’s favour that, contrary to my findings in Section F.8, P fell from Platform(P) which lacked guardrails, I would reach the same conclusion. 120.There is no hard and fast rule that the provision of a foldable platform without guardrails by itself necessarily constitutes an unsafe system of work. Each case must turn on its own facts. 121.In Wong Wing Chow v Lee Wing Hang Patrick t/a Wing Shun Construction Company HCPI 244/2002 (unreported, 24 October 2003), the plaintiff fell from a 4-metre-long aluminium ladder without a handrail, which had round rungs spaced 1 foot apart (§2). DHCJ To held (§16):
122.In Li Kwok Kee v China HK Wah Lee Limited HCPI 477/2013 (unreported, 22 October 2014), a container truck driver fell from a 3.5-foot-high platform connecting the truck and its trailer (§4). He bypassed an affixed two-rung vertical metal ladder whose rungs sat 20 and 33 inches above the ground respectively (§5). Chow J (as he then was) held this ladder provided a reasonably safe means of access (§29), reasoning at §§27-28:
123.I consider that Platform(P) without guardrails was still a reasonably safe means of ascent and descent, and did not make the system of work unsafe, having regard to the following:
H. Whether P was contributorily negligent 124.The analysis in this part is relevant only if the conclusions in both Sections F and G were wrong. 125.The governing principles on contributory negligence are trite. D bears the burden of proving that P failed to take reasonable care of himself, thereby contributing to his foreseeable injuries. 126.D’s relevant pleas on contributory negligence are as follows[97]:
127.In employment cases, a distinction has to be drawn between the situation where there has been momentary inattention on the part of an injured employee and the conscious acceptance of a risk by an employee: Ng Tim Yip Kevin (formerly known as Ng Tim Yip) v Chan Ho Kin (formerly t/a Kenny’s Engineering Company formerly known as Kenny’s Company) CACV 285/2007 (unreported, 23 October 2008) §52, referring to the equivalent passages in Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence (16th ed, 2025), §§4-73 and 13-96. 128.In Yu Pun Yuen v Ng Kwok Man t/a East Mountain Engineering Company HCPI 293/2002 (unreported, 9 May 2003), the plaintiff initially climbed a ladder after verifying that a colleague was steadying it for him. As he moved higher, he focused entirely on his work rather than his coworker (§63). However, upon completing his tasks eight to ten minutes later, he failed to check if the colleague was still holding the ladder before descending, causing a fall (§64). Suffiad J held that such failure constituted contributory negligence and assessed it at 20% (§§66-67). 129.In Rai Jun Prasad v Pacific Crown Security Services Ltd [2018] HKCFI 1086, a foreman instructed the plaintiff to climb an unbraced metal ladder resting against a drill bucket despite an obvious slippage risk. The ladder slipped while he was climbing up, causing him to swing violently against the bucket (§§6-8). DHCJ Saunders assessed contributory negligence at 20% because he failed to ask his two colleagues nearby to hold the ladder as he went up (§§13-14). 130.Assuming that P fell from Platform(P) which lacked guardrails, I would find that P was contributorily negligent, and would assess his contributory negligence at 20% for the reasons set out in Section G and having regard to the above authorities. I. Assessment of the medical evidence 131.The medical evidence is assessed in accordance with the following well-established principles. 132.“[T]he role of an expert is to assist the court in relation to matters of scientific, technical or other specialised knowledge which are outside the judge’s expertise by giving evidence of fact or opinion; but the expert must not usurp the functions of the judge as the ultimate decision-maker on matters that are central to the outcome of the case. Thus, as a general rule, the judge has the task of assessing the evidence of an expert for its adequacy and persuasiveness.” (italics in original): Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2025] AC 374 §36, Lord Hodge DPSC (with whom the other members of the Court agreed). 133.“Because an expert’s task is to assist the judge in matters outside the judge’s expertise, and it is the judge’s role to decide the case, the quality of an expert’s reasoning is of prime importance.”: Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2025] AC 374 §37, Lord Hodge DPSC. “An expert must explain the basis of his or her evidence when it is not personal observation or sensation; mere assertion or ‘bare ipse dixit’ carries little weight … such evidence is worthless.”: Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP [2016] 1 WLR 597 (SC) §48, Lord Reed and Lord Hodge JJSC (with whom Lady Hale DPSC, Lord Wilson and Lord Toulson JJSC agreed). “What carries weight is not the mere fact that the opinion is held but the strength of the reasons for it”: Rubis Bahamas Ltd v Russell [2026] 2 WLR 896 §32, Lord Leggatt (for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council). Paragraph 8 of the Code of conduct for expert witnesses in Appendix E to the Rules of the District Court, Cap 336H specifically requires reasons to be specified:
134.“It was for the judge to decide whether on the evidence the plaintiff had been unable to work and, if he had been able to work, the extent to which he was able to work. Obviously in doing so the judge must have regard to the medical evidence. Nevertheless, the judge cannot be bound by the mere issue of sick leave certificates … [which] would be primarily because of the subjective symptoms reported to the doctors by the plaintiff.”: Choy Wai Chung v Chun Wo Construction & Engineering Co Ltd CACV 172/2004 (unreported, 15 July 2005) §9, Rogers VP (with whom Le Pichon JA and Stone J agreed). 135.When reading medical documents like records and reports, the court must be aware that it is not the usual duty of attending doctors to judge whether a patient’s subjective complaints (such as pain and tenderness) are truthful. A doctor would most likely record what he was told by the patient as the medical history, which is essentially subjective and may be no more than hearsay evidence. The court may often be in a better position to assess the truthfulness of any subjective medical history in light of all the evidence, tested by cross-examination. Previous medical documentation of a patient’s complaint should not by itself necessarily support its genuineness. Medical documents are no more than part of the evidence that the Court has to evaluate in light of all the available evidence: Gurung Kamala v Hong Wei Ltd DCPI 1660/2010 (unreported, 26 March 2012) §§78-84, DDJ Harold Leung (as he then was). 136.“Whether a Plaintiff is malingering and has exaggerated his symptoms will be a question of fact for the court. It may not be appropriate for a medical practitioner to express any conclusion on this factual question. However, medical experts instructed to examine a Plaintiff in a personal injury litigation should examine the subjective complaints made by the Plaintiff critically, explain whether and to what extent such subjective complaints can be supported by objective medical evidence and reasons, and insofar [as] they cannot be so supported, what could be the possible, or are likely to be the probable, reasons.”: Bokhim Dil Kumar v Dragages Hong Kong Ltd [2020] HKCFI 3136 §30, DHCJ Paul Lam SC. 137.The parties rely on the Joint Medical Report of Dr Tsoi Chi Wah Danny (“Dr Tsoi”) and Dr Ho Ching Lun Henry (“Dr Ho”), both orthopaedic experts, dated 3 February 2023 (“the JMR”), following their joint assessment of P on 9 August 2022. 138.The JMR records P’s initial post-Fall treatment[98]. On 12 December 2018, X-ray revealed “good alignment of bone with no fracture or dislocation”. On 18 December 2018, X-ray revealed “fracture left calcaneum”, prompting admission to KWH’s orthopaedic ward. On 19 December 2018, P was discharged with a clinical diagnosis of “fracture left calcaneum and anterior talofibular ligament injury”. 139.P complained to the experts of continuous left heel pain, with fluctuating intensity, which disturbed him even at rest. He could stand and walk for up to 20 and 30 minutes respectively. He used a stick for outdoor activities but not at home. He experienced difficulty climbing stairs, and could not climb more than 20 steps continuously. He took two to three painkiller tablets per week. He suffered from swelling and stiffness in his left ankle, but was able to squat. He could conduct daily activities and use public transport[99]. 140.Physical examination[100] of his left ankle and foot revealed mild soft tissue swelling as well as tenderness over the lateral and plantar aspects, with muscle power of 5/5 in all directions. P walked with a normal gait with a single stick held in his right hand. Without the stick, he walked with a slow gait and a mild limp. 141.Radiological examination[101] of his left ankle and heel revealed that the fracture of his left calcaneum had healed, with mild widening of the bone in the axial view. There was “no sign of disuse osteoporosis”, and the degree of wear on the soles of his shoes was symmetrical[102]. 142.Both experts agreed that the axial view on the X-ray taken at KWH on 18 December 2018 confirmed that P had suffered a “mildly displaced left calcaneum” (i.e. fracture of the heel bone), and the MRI done on 9 December 2019 revealed a partial tear of the anterior tibiofibular ligament, posterior talofibular ligament, deltoid ligament, and interosseous ligament. 143.The experts were largely agreed on causation. Dr Tsoi concluded that the injuries were solely caused by the Accident with a compatible mechanism; Dr Ho concluded that they were compatible with the injury mechanism described in the Accident. Dr Ho was of the view that the degeneration of P’s Achilles tendon was not related to the Accident. 144.The experts disagreed as follows:
145.I find Dr Tsoi’s evidence unsatisfactory and I would generally prefer the evidence of Dr Ho for three reasons. 146.First, Dr Tsoi gave no reason at all for his views that: (1) P’s residual complaints were “genuine”; (2) his injuries “will be [a] source of residual pain on weight bearing”; and (3) sick leave up to 6 January 2021 “should be considered reasonable”. Similarly, Dr Tsoi merely stated that P “will have difficulty in resuming his pre-injury job that requires ladder and scaffold climbing, weightlifting and frequent squatting”. He gave no opinion, and no reason for any opinion, as to how P’s asserted job requirements related to his view that P would have difficulty resuming such duties. His opinion therefore carries little weight. 147.Second, P conceded under cross-examination that his duties did not require frequent squatting; in fact, he might not squat at all during an entire working day. He also could not recall whether he had climbed any scaffolding during his five days of employment with D. P failed to disclose to the doctors that his duties required working alongside a colleague, or utilising a lifting machine, when handling heavy windows. 148.Third, in contrast, Dr Ho critically analysed P’s complaints, providing an objective rationale for his conclusions. Based on the undisputed “absence of disuse osteoporosis” ― evidenced by normal bone density in the left ankle and symmetrical shoe-sole wear ― he concluded that the injuries did not affect normal walking and weight-bearing. Dr Ho further considered that P should be able to return to his pre-accident duties, reasoning that any mild initial impact would resolve through muscle and soft tissue adaptation. 149.I find that the injuries have not prevented P from using his left leg for normal walking, that he has been able to bear weight normally, and that P would be able to return to normal duties in his pre-accident job. By 29 July 2020, that is 19 months 17 days from the date of the Accident, P’s condition had already reached maximal medical improvement. J. Quantum of damages 150.P was 56 years old at the date of the Accident and is 63 years and 11 months old at trial. The parties’ cases on quantum are as follows:
J.1 Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenities (“PSLA”) 151.Mr Chin submitted that PSLA should be between HK$250,000 and HK$300,000. Of the eight cases he cited, I find Hu Wan v Sanwo International Co Ltd [2021] HKDC 237 to be of assistance. The plaintiff saleslady suffered a bimalleolar fracture of her left ankle after falling from a ladder (of unstated height). She underwent open reduction and internal fixation surgery and was hospitalised for five days, with slight muscle wastage at her thigh and calf on her left leg. HHJ Andrew Li (as he then was) awarded HK$250,000 for PSLA (§41). 152.Mr Leung submitted that PSLA should not exceed HK$200,000 on the basis of the following cases:
153.This case bears resemblance to, but is less serious than, Hu Wan v Sanwo International Co Ltd [2021] HKDC 237 and Chan Mok Yau v 黃吉利 [2018] HKCFI 1084. I consider that an appropriate award for PSLA would be HK$200,000. J.2 Pre-trial loss of earnings and MPF 154.Regarding P’s pre-accident average monthly income, it is agreed that P’s daily wage was HK$1,100. P testified that the estimate of 24 working days per month was acceptable. D adduced the salary records of its worker Mr Lee Yuen Fai from October 2018 to October 2022, and Mr Chan from April 2018 to October 2022 showing a similar pattern of working days. I find P’s average monthly income to be HK$1,100 x 24 days = HK$26,400. 155.Dr Ho’s evidence which I accepted is that sick leave up to 29 July 2020 was already adequate, by which time P’s condition had reached maximal medical improvement ― 19 months and 17 days after the Accident. Both experts gave no specific opinion on the earliest date when P could resume duties at all or in his pre-accident job. 156.D relied on various Facebook posts by P’s wife’s printing company to show that P was able to resume his duties much earlier:
157.The Physiotherapy Progress Notes compiled by the same physiotherapist recorded P’s walking ability under “Clinical Findings” as follows[108]:
158.This demonstrates that P’s mobility had progressively improved to the point where he could walk unaided with full weight-bearing on 18 September 2019. Furthermore, a KWH medical report dated 12 August 2020 stated that he attended the appointment alone and could “walk unaided.”[109] 159.On balance, I find that P could return to work by 12 October 2019. The appropriate award under this head would be:
J.3 Post-trial loss of earnings and MPF 160.The JMR stated that P has been working as an auditing/surveying worker on a part-time basis since late 2021. P testified that his monthly income as a part-time surveyor increased to a monthly average of HK$10,000 since June 2025 until trial. Since P could return to his pre-accident job, no award should be made under this head. J.4 Loss of earning capacity 161.In Lo Hing Kin Nelson v Personal Representative of Lam Yuk Wan (deceased) [2017] 3 HKLRD 294, G Lam J (as he then was, giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal) affirmed at §33 that “this head of damages is not a conventional award made in the abstract but a specific mode of compensation that has to be based on evidence”, applying Chan Wai Tong v Li Ping Sum [1985] AC 446 at 460A-D (Lord Fraser, delivering the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from Hong Kong):
162.Quite apart from the fact that P would reach 65 years of age in July 2027, for the reasons set out in Section J.3, P has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that an award should be made under this head. J.5 Special damages 163.Special damages are agreed at HK$9,100. J.6 Summary of damages 164.The summary of damages is as follows:
165.P received HK$600,000 to settle his intended employees’ compensation claim. This exceeded the total damages which I would have awarded. For this additional reason, P’s claim must be dismissed. K. Disposition 166.For the foregoing reasons, P’s action is dismissed. I make an order nisi that P do pay D’s costs of this action (including all costs reserved) with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed. 167.The Court expresses its gratitude to all counsel for their cooperation in facilitating the efficient conduct of the trial. Upon Mr Chin’s unforeseen but entirely excusable absence midway through P’s cross-examination, Mr Leung very properly consented to P’s legal team taking instructions. Consequently, Mr Wan assumed the conduct of the cross-examination of D’s witnesses on very short notice, and Mr Chin promptly returned to provide both written and oral submissions.
Mr Edward Chin (on 2 and 11 June 2026) and Mr Arthur Wan, instructed by Wong & Lawyers, for the Plaintiff Mr Dexter Leung, instructed by Paul C.K. Tang & Chiu, for the Defendant [1] Unless otherwise specified, all currency is in Hong Kong dollars and all emphases are added. [2] A46/§3 [3] A50/§3 [4] A49/§1 [5] A49/§2 [6] A50/§4 [7] A50/§5 [8] A51/§6 [9] A39/§§7.1-7.5 [10] A40-41/§8.1-8.5 [11] A55-56/§§5(2) and 5(7) [12] A60/§14(1) [13] A56/§5(5) [14] A56, 59-60/§§5(7), 12(1) and 14(2) [15] A57/§8 [16] A55/§5(1) [17] A55-57/§§5(2), 5(5) and 5(10) [18] A58-59/§11 [19] A57, 59/§§5(11), 5(12) and 12 [20] A58/§7-10 [21] A59/§13 [22] A55-59/§§5, 11-12 [23] A49-50/§3 [24] B2, 4/§§6(3), 11-14 [25] B84/§20; B211/§10 [26] B2/§§6(1)-6(2) [27] B3/§6(3)(x) [28] B2/§§6(3)(i)-(iii) [29] B2/§6(3)(iv) [30] B2-3/§6(3)(v) [31] B3/§6(3)(vi)-(vii) [32] B3/§6(3)(viii) [33] B3/§6(3)(ix) [34] 2 June 2026 at 11:32:47 to 11:45:00 [35] B84/§20 [36] B126-129 [37] B94 [38] B211/§10 [39] B259/§13 [40] B276 [41] B260/§15 [42] B221 [43] B209/§6 [44] B3/§9 [45] B16 [46] B4/§§11-12 [47] B26/§4 [48] B4/§13 [49] B4/§§14-15 [50] 2 June 2026 at 12:12:00 to 12:13:29 [51] 4 June 2026 at 10:12:00 to 10:30:28 [52] 2 June 2026 at 14:46:06 to 14:48:03 [53] B276 [54] B22/§7 [55] B22/§8 [56] B22/§9; In his examination in chief, Mr Lim corrected his witness statement, stating “three different types”. [57] B271 [58] 4 June 2026 at 11:24:37 to 11:29:25 [59] B79/§9; B101 [60] 4 June 2026 at 14:49:28 to 14:50:12 [61] B80/§12; B108 [62] B80/§12; B108 [63] B80/§12 [64] B231/§14; B243 [65] B228/§6 [66] E3 [67] B228-229/§7 [68] B229/§8 [69] B239 [70] B227 - 229/§§5, 9 [71] B209-210/§6 [72] B210/§6 [73] B210/§7 [74] 5 June 2026 at 09:55:00 to 09:55:30 [75] 2 June 2026 at 10:30:40 to 10:30:52 [76] 2 June 2026 at 10:20:14 to 10:40:10 [77] 2 June 2026 at 11:16:30 to 11:17:20 [78] 2 June 2026 at 11:47:38 to 11:48:38 [79] A33/§1.4 [80] 2 June 2026 at 11:58:00 to 11:59:00 [81] 2 June 2026 at 12:08:50 to 12:10:29 [82] B4/§13 [83] 2 June 2026 at 14:46:00 to 14:46:06 [84] 2 June 2026 at 14:46:06 to 14:48:03 [85] B239 [86] B25/§3 [87] A149/§1 [88] B57/§7 [89] B74 [90] B19 [91] B230/§11 [92] B113 [93] 2 June 2026 at 12:35:55 to 12:36:39 [94] C40 [95] H1 [96] H2-5, 14-25 and 28 [97] A61-63/§16(1)-(9) [98] D5-6/§§3-8 [99] D9 [100] D10-11 [101] D12-13 [102] D10/§1.9; D12/§6 [103] B138-139 [104] B141 [105] B143 [106] B150 [107] B156-159 [108] H31, 33, 35 and 37 [109] C30 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error
Cases cited in this judgment