Liang Litan 對 Mok Ka-fai 及另一人

On 21 September 2026, Deputy District Judge Li Siu-him handed down judgment in the consolidated personal injury actions DCPI 2890/2020 and DCPI 3052/2020, dismissing both claims. Mr Tsang Wai-nam (曾蔚南大律師), instructed by LC Legal LLP, acted for the successful second defendant Profit Base Limited.

The plaintiff Liang Litan, a waitress at a hotpot restaurant operated by the second defendant, sued two male colleagues (the first defendants) for battery arising from two separate workplace assaults in September 2017, and sued her employer for negligence and vicarious liability. The first defendants never defended and did not appear at trial.

The court's findings

The court held that: (1) Incident 1 (2 September 2017) occurred as pleaded. The court relied on the criminal conviction of Mok Ka-fai for common assault, accepting the magistrate's findings under section 62 of the Evidence Ordinance that Mok struck the plaintiff's left wrist with his fist and a stainless steel strainer (§§18-21). (2) Incident 2 (19 September 2017) did not occur as pleaded. The plaintiff's evidence was internally inconsistent and contradicted contemporaneous medical records. She claimed Leung struck her right upper arm with his palm, but the medical report recorded being hit with a "fist" on "both arms"; her shifting explanations (first "trusting the doctor's judgment," then accusing the doctor of failing to examine her) were untenable (§§28-31). (3) The second defendant was not in breach of its duty of care. The plaintiff failed to prove the employer knew or ought to have known of a real risk of assault by either colleague (§§48-56). (4) The second defendant was vicariously liable for Incident 1. Following Ming An Insurance v Ritz-Carlton and Various Claimants v WM Morrison, the assault was sufficiently connected to the employment relationship: Mok was retrieving bowls as part of his duties as a waiter when the assault occurred (§§75-77).

Result

Despite finding vicarious liability, the court awarded only $6,000 in PSLA for Incident 1 (and $5,000 hypothetically for Incident 2), plus minimal special damages. Because the plaintiff had already received $616,000 in employee compensation, no damages were payable (§§114-115). Costs were ordered against the plaintiff on an indemnity basis from 9 September 2023, the date of the joint expert report that made clear the claims were unfounded (§§117-118).

Why it matters

For practitioners advising on workplace assault claims, three points stand out. First, contemporaneous medical records remain decisive on credibility, particularly where a plaintiff's account shifts between examination-in-chief and cross-examination. Second, vicarious liability for workplace assaults turns on whether the tortfeasor was acting within the scope of employment at the time, not on whether the employer could have foreseen the assault. Third, where employee compensation already exceeds tort damages, pursuing the tort claim becomes pure costs risk, and defendants should press for indemnity basis costs from the date the expert report crystallises the weakness of the claim.