Choi Chun Ming v. Cosco-hit Terminals (Hong Kong) Ltd and Another

HCPI 151/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 151 OF 2008

----------------------

----------------------

Before:  Hon Fung J in Chambers

Date of Hearing:  4 May 2009

Date of Decision:  4 May 2009

----------------------

D E C I S I O N

----------------------

1.This case management conference was fixed pursuant to my decision on 1 May 2009 to admit two additional statements on similar accidents as alleged by the Plaintiff.

2.Mr. Lam, for the 2^nd Defendant, has proposed extensive directions seeking full scale discovery on all matters related to the previous accidents as well as for carte blanche leave to administer interrogatories arising from the discovery.

3.I do not consider that such wholesale discovery is necessary either for the fair disposal of the cause or matter or for saving costs.

4.The new evidence related to two previous accidents where the tractor truck was lifted up by the spreader hoist together with the container. It was allowed because the 2^nd Defendant said they relied on the system of work of the 1^st Defendant where so far there was no problem.  As a matter of justice and fairness, I cannot ignore the fact of what happened in the past and allowed the 2^nd Defendant to say there was no problem so far. 

5.With the issue properly defined, I consider the only further investigation in the following limited manner be necessarily required:

(1)  whether the 1^st Defendant did receive the report of the two accidents as stated in the witness statements of Tam and Szeto;

(2)  whether the 1^st Defendant did inform the 2^nd Defendant of the same; and

(3)  reply from the 2^nd Defendant.

6.The matter can be so limited because the issue is whether in the light of similar accidents in the past, the 2^nd Defendant should have instructed the Plaintiff to alight from the vehicle before any lifting operation.  It is a matter of whether the risk was known or ought to have been known.  No investigation as to the details of the accidents is required. 

7.In such circumstances, I shall simply fix the timetable for the witness statements to be given by the 1^st Defendant, then the 2^nd Defendant.  I shall allow the 1^st Defendant 28 days, thereafter the 2^nd Defendant 42 days (by reason of communication with the provisional liquidator as the 2^nd Defendant is being wound up).

8.I fix the next CMC on 22 June 2009 at 2:30 pm.

Miss Lee Wing Cheung Virginia, of Messrs Y C Lee, Pang, Kwok & Ip, for the Plaintiff

Miss Carmen Leung, of Messrs Holman Fenwick Willan, for the 1^st Defendant

Mr Lam Chi Hung, of Messrs Cheng, Yeung & Co, for the 2^nd Defendant