Khan Saqib v. Strong League Engineering Ltd

DCEC 2401/2023 · [2026] HKDC 1089 · District Court · 2026-06-25 · published 15 July 2026

In Khan Saqib v Strong League Engineering Ltd [2026] HKDC 1089, Deputy District Judge Simon Ho delivered a comprehensive judgment addressing both liability and quantum in a personal injuries action arising from an industrial accident, alongside a parallel employees' compensation action.

Background

On 25 July 2023, Mr Khan was handling a 1.5m metal beam with a co-worker next to a truck's tailboard at his new employer's warehouse in Kowloon Bay. When his co-worker lost balance while fitting plastic material onto the beam's other end, the beam jerked upward and crushed Mr Khan's right ring finger against the tailboard edge (§§5, 12).

Liability in the PI action

The court found Strong League's foreman, Mr Hung, instructed Mr Khan to work in a cramped space hemmed in by a wooden pallet on one side and the tailboard edge on the other—an inherently hazardous pinch point (§15). Despite being fully aware of the dangers (§20), Hung allowed the task to proceed. The court held (§24) that Strong League was in "blatant breach" of its non-delegable duty to provide a safe place of work, citing Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence (14th ed) at para 12-27 and Chu Chung Man v East Asia Moving Ltd [2020] HKDC 362 at para 54. CCTV evidence was decisive in resolving the conflicting accounts (§§12(2)–(7)).

Contributory Negligence Rejected

Strong League argued 50% contributory negligence. The court disagreed (§28), emphasising Mr Khan was simply obeying his supervisor's orders on his first day at the site. The court applied Cheung Kai Chi v Chun Wo Contractors Ltd [2008] 1 HKLRD 102 at para 35, recognising workers' reluctance to disobey superiors for fear of dismissal, and Machray v Stewarts and Lloyds Ltd [1965] 1 WLR 602 at p.610F-G, declining to blame a worker adopting a course of conduct "in order to get on with his employer's business."

Quantum

On the EC side, the court preferred the single joint expert Dr Wong's 1% LOEC assessment over the MAB's 0.25% (§57), and reduced sick leave from 257 days to 3 months based on Dr Wong's evidence (§82). Section 9: HK$19,968; Section 10: HK$49,920; Section 10A: HK$1,200. In the PI action, the court awarded PSLA of HK$48,000 (§94), pre-trial loss of earnings and MPF of HK$65,520 (§97), loss of earning capacity of HK$20,000 (§100), and agreed special damages of HK$6,700.

Why it matters

The judgment reinforces that an employer cannot delegate workplace safety decisions to workers simply because a task appears straightforward, and that courts will be slow to find contributory negligence where workers are following direct supervisor instructions in unsafe conditions. It also confirms that single joint expert evidence on LOEC can prevail over MAB certification where properly reasoned.