Wong Wai Hing and Another v. Hui Wei Lee
Read the full judgment text of CACV 136/2000 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 8 June 2001 before Rogers VP, Keith JA, Le Pichon JA.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal – vicarious liability – torts committed by agents – application of test for grant of leave on ground of great general or public importance – whether complex point of law with sparse authority warrants leave – reliance on Australian authority of the highest court not cited in other jurisdictions – Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2000 from HCA 2901/1998 – Plaintiffs Wong Wai Hing and Fung Siu Ling – Defendant Hui Wei Lee – Court of Appeal panel comprising Rogers VP, Keith JA and Le Pichon JA – judgment delivered 8 June 2001 – application for leave heard 8 June 2001 – Court considers that the legal point on vicarious liability for torts committed by a third party is complex and that authority on the question is sparse – the only authority relied upon is from the highest court in Australia and does not appear to have been cited in other jurisdictions – Court concludes that the matter is of great general or public importance – leave to appeal granted subject to conditions – Plaintiffs/Respondents represented by Mr Kwok Sui-hay instructed by Messrs Charles Yeung Clement Lam Liu & Yip – Defendant/Appellant represented by Mr John Mullick instructed by Messrs Gary Lau & Partners.
Legal issues: Grant of leave to appeal on question of vicarious liability for torts committed by agents
Outcome: Leave to appeal granted to the Defendant/Appellant, subject to conditions.
Cited by 3 cases · Cites 1 case
|
CACV000136A/2000 CACV 136/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 136 OF 2000 (ON APPEAL FROM HCA 2901/1998) _______________________
_______________________ Coram: Hon. Rogers VP, Keith JA and Le Pichon JA in Court Date of Hearing: 8 June 2001 Date of Judgment: 8 June 2001 __________________ J U D G M E N T __________________ Hon Rogers VP: 1.We have considered the submissions made by counsel both for and against leave to appeal. It appears to us that the legal point involved in this case is by no means an easy one. It is complex and, indeed, the authority in relation to vicarious liability for torts committed by a third party is sparse. The authority that we have relied upon in our judgments is an authority of the highest court in Australia but does not appear to have been cited in other jurisdictions. 2.We consider that the matter involved, as I have indicated, of vicarious liability for torts committed by agents, is a matter of great general or public importance and, in those circumstances, this Court is disposed to grant leave subject to conditions.
Representation: Mr Kwok Sui-hay, instructed by Messrs Charles Yeung Clement Lam Liu & Yip, for the Plaintiffs/Respondents Mr John Mullick, instructed by Messrs Gary Lau & Partners for the Defendant/Appellant |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 136/2000