YEUNG MEI HOI v. TAM CHEUK SHING AND ANOTHER

HCPI 901/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 901 OF 2011

(transferred from DCPI No 1566 of 2009)

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.  The plaintiff (“Yeung”) was assaulted by his subordinate, the 1^st defendant (“Tam”), in the course of their work for the 2^nd defendant (“Kai Shing”) in August 2006. Yeung claims against Tam and Kai Shing damages for personal injuries so sustained.

BACKGROUND

2.  Kai Shing provides management services to real properties in Hong Kong, including the residential estate at Phase 1A, Monterey Cypress Drive, Palm Springs, Lok Ma Chau, Yuen Long, New Territories (“the Estate”). At the material time, Tam and Yeung were employed and assigned by Kai Shing to work at the Estate.  Tam was a security guard while Yeung was a customer service supervisor.

3.  On 26 August 2006, Yeung and Tam worked in the same night shift commencing at 11:00 pm.  In the small hours of the following day, 27 August 2006, the two were involved in physical violence.  As a result, both were charged with fighting in public place.

4.  The record shows that Tam was prepared to be bound over whereas Yeung refused.  Eventually, upon the advice of the Department of Justice, the prosecution offered no evidence against both of them and they were discharged.

5.  Yeung then lodged formal complaints in relation to his arrest and prosecution as well as the prosecution’s decision not to press more serious charges against Tam.

6.  Yeung claimed employees’ compensation against Kai Shing, which was settled in 2010.

7.  The claim for damages was commenced in the District Court.  Tam has not taken any step in the action.  Judgment on liability for damages to be assessed with costs was entered against Tam on 12 October 2009.

8.  The case was then transferred to the Court of First Instance.

9.  The court directed for substituted service of proceedings on Tam.  Tam was absent from the trial.  Satisfied with the evidence of service as directed, I allowed Yeung to proceed with the trial.

THE ASSAULT

10.  There is no dispute that Yeung was the shift supervisor on duty and superior of Tam at the material time.  According to Yeung, at about 2:45 am on 27 August 2006, an urban taxi with a suspected drunken passenger on board entered the Estate without properly passing the guard at the main gate.  Learning about that, Yeung asked the other security guards on duty through his walkie-talkie to locate the whereabout of the taxi. Minutes later, Tam reported his sight of the taxi from his position.

11.  Yeung proceeded to the security post where Tam was stationed.  Apparently Yeung took the view that that it should not have taken so long for the taxi to travel from the main gate to the location reported by Tam; and that Tam failed to report promptly.  Yeung enquired with Tam about that.  According to Yeung, Tam was not happy with such enquiry; and reacted rudely with some swearing.  At that point, Yeung also discovered that Tam was not properly dressed up in his uniform.  Yeung took that as a breach and used the camera with him to take a photograph of Tam.  Tam became agitated; tried to snatch Yeung’s camera; and hit Yeung with his fist.  Yeung was struck at his head by what was later discovered to be Yeung’s walkie-talkie. Yeung sustained head injuries.

12.  Considering the evidence, I find the incident happened as mentioned above.

YEUNG’S CASE

13.  Yeung holds Kai Shing liable on the following bases:

(1) Kai Shing is vicariously liable for the assault by Tam.

(2) Kai Shing was in breach of its duties owed to Yeung.

Vicarious liability

14.  Deliberate tortuous acts committed by the employee contrary to the employer’s business or instructions may nevertheless be acts that the employer is vicariously liable.  The key is whether such tortuous act is so closely connected with the employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable: see Ming An Insurance Co (HK) Ltd v Ritz-Carlton Ltd [2002] 3 HKLRD 844[1].  Each case turns on its own facts (see §25, per Bokhary PJ).  Litton NPJ said (at §42):

“……it must be remembered that the issue is not free standing, and matters such as the servant’s duties at the time when the tort occurred, whether he was acting in the interests of the employer or solely for himself, etc, are still relevant. And, casting one’s eyes a little wider, the court should also have regard to the business activities of the employer broadly speaking and ask if the risk which gave rise to the damage …… was created by those activities.”

15.  The above principles have since been applied in Li Hoi Shuen v Man Ming Engineering Trading Co Ltd [2006] 1 HKLRD 84; and Cheung Chak Fui v Sun Hing Organisation Plastic Management Ltd v Anor, HCPI 91/2008 (30 September 2011).

16.  In the present case, it cannot fairly be said that Tam carried out the assault in the course of execution of his duties as security guard.  It was Yeung who was supervising and enforcing discipline of Tam at the time.  In the course of that, Tam’s outburst and act of violence to his superior was not at all expected in the discharge of his own duties as security guard and subordinate.  The outburst and act of personal spite by Tam against Yeung took Tam out of the scope of the acts that could be interpreted as acts inherent in the nature or characteristics of Kai Shing’s business carried out by Tam.  Nor could they be interpreted as acts advancing the interest or purpose of Kai Shing.  In the circumstances, it is unjust, if not absurd, to attach vicarious liability on the part of Kai Shing for such act of Tam against Yeung.

Breach of duties

17.  The following breach of duties are pleaded:

(1) negligence;

(2) breach of duties as employer; and

(3) breach of statutory duties.

18.  The same particulars are relied on in support of the above causes of action.  They are general, save and except the allegation that Kai Shing caused, permitted or allowed Tam to strike Yeung with a walkie-talkie.  This specific allegation must be rejected, in the absence of contention or evidence that Kai Shing knew or reasonably foresaw that Tam would use the walkie-talkie that way.  As to the other general allegations, they go to the question of whether Kai Shing has failed to provide a safe system of work.

19.  In the context of an employee being a victim of assault in the course of work, the Court of Appeal in Wong Wai Ming v The Hospital Authority [2001] 3 HKLRD 209 had this to say (at §8):

“An employer is under a duty to its workforce to take reasonable care for their safety. Where one employment happens to be more dangerous that another, a greater degree of care must be taken, but where the employer cannot eliminate the risk of danger, it is required to take reasonable precautions to reduce the risk as far as possible: see Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence, 9^th ed., para.10-83. However, an employer is not required to take reasonable precautions to remove every risk which might confront its workforce. In a classic statement of the relevant principles, Lord Reid said in The Wagon Mound (No.2) [1967] AC 617 at pp. 642E-643A:

“…… it does not follow that, no matter what the circumstances may be, it is justifiable to neglect a risk of …… a small magnitude. A reasonable man would only neglect such a risk if he had some valid reason for doing so, e.g., that it would involve considerable expense to eliminate the risk. He would weigh the risk against the difficulty of eliminating it…… The general principle is that a person must be regarded as negligent if he does not take steps to eliminate a risk which he knows or ought to know is a real risk and not a mere possibility which would never influence the mind of a reasonable man……It is justifiable not to take steps to eliminate a real risk if it is small and if the circumstances are such that a reasonable man, careful of the safety of his neighbour, would think it right to neglect it.””

20.  In Chung Pak Cheong Rigo v Cheung Wai Chung & Anor, DCPI 2301/2009 (13 April 2012), I said (at §17) that in a similar context, the above general principles could be translated to become that if an employer knew or reasonably foresees that acts being done by employees during their employment may cause physical or mental harm to a particular fellow employee and he does nothing to supervise or prevent such acts, when it is in his power to do so, he may be in breach of his duty to that particular employee[2]. Each case must turn on its own facts.

21.  There is no plea that Kai Shing has failed to provide competent staff.  Nor is there suggestion or evidence that Kai Shing was negligent in employing Tam in the first place.  Essentially the pleading suggests that Kai Shing has failed to prevent Yeung from the risk or danger of injury by Tam.  But the specifics of such contention were unknown.

22.  In his first statement, Yeung specifically alleged that Kai Shing has failed to provide instructions or training to him on how to deal with staff with bad temper.  In what circumstances Kai Shing was said to be under such specific duty was however not clear.

23.  Kai Shing’s witness statement followed.  Chan Tim Wing (“Chan”), who was the superior of both Yeung and Tam at the time, made his statement apparently prior to date of Yeung’s statement.  Chan stated that Tam joined Kai Shing in January 2004; and Yeung joined a month later.  Both were said to have performed well in their jobs.  There was no record of propensity to violence or insubordination in relation to either of them.  Nor was there record of complaint by the residents of the Estate about them.  Chan has never heard about any violence among colleagues at work during his 9 years of service with Kai Shing at the Estate; and he was surprised by the present incident.

24.  What Chan managed to bring out by his statement was the key issue relevant to Yeung’s case, namely, if the assault was not reasonably foreseeable, Kai Shing should not be criticised for not taking any step to prevent an unforeseeable risk.

25.  Yeung then put in his supplemental statement, essentially suggesting that Tam’s propensity to violence was in fact known by the management prior to the assault. He now referred to 2 incidents allegedly happened about half a year prior to the assault.  The first one was the alleged dispute involving bodily contact between Tam and another assistant customer service supervisor.  At that supervisor’s advice, Yeung did not report the incident.  The second one was the alleged verbal abuse and threat by Tam to beat and chop Yeung up.  Yeung allegedly reported the threat to Chan; but Chan chose to believe Tam instead of Yeung.  Since then, Tam was said to have indulged himself in paying no respect to Yeung.  Yeung added that even Chan had described Tam as a fierce dog (or in Yeung’s term “鬥牛梗”) that would bite people to death.  According to Yeung, Chan openly and repeatedly said so in front of the staff during formal meetings.

26.  As far as the first alleged incident is concerned, only the supervisor involved was named, who has apparently resigned.  More importantly, the alleged incident, if not reported, would not have come to the attention of Kai Shing anyway.  The second alleged incident, which involved threat to cause Yeung bodily harm, would have been a serious matter. In court, Yeung added that the incident was actually recorded in the Occurrence Book kept by Kai Shing.  Yet, had that been Yeung’s case all along, one would have expected that to have been raised as well in his supplemental statement, if not earlier.  One would also have expected request for specific discovery of the Occurrence Book by Kai Shing, especially when Yeung accepted that the record in the Occurrence Book should be meticulous.  Nothing of that sort had been done, notwithstanding the fact that part of the Occurrence Book was indeed disclosed and produced.  In court, Chan denied the recent assertion, recalling that he has not received or come across report of that sort.

27.  As to the remark that Chan had allegedly made about Tam, that Chan would somehow feel free to make such possibly insulting remark about a member of staff and even repeatedly in formal meetings with the other staff per se sounds odd. Chan denied having done so.

28.  Whilst Yeung sought to demonstrate Tam’s propensity to violence by reference to the above alleged previous incidents, those alleged incidents nevertheless did not seem to operate to put him on guard when he dealt with Tam.  Yeung effectively admitted that in court.  Notwithstanding Tam’s rude reaction to Yeung’s enquiry about his failure to promptly report the whereabout the taxi, Yeung did not leave it at that but saw fit to go further and questioned Tam on his uniform and even took photograph of Tam for the purpose of filing a disciplinary report against Tam.  In court, Yeung admitted that he had not thought that Tam would attack him at the time.  He also did not mention the alleged previous threat by Tam to harm him even during the subsequent police investigation.

29.  On balance, I prefer the evidence of Chan and doubt that of Yeung in this respect.  More importantly, if any previous experience or information concerning Tam did not even operate to put Yeung on alert when he confronted Tam on work matters, one would ask on what basis should Kai Shing be reasonably under the duty to take precautionary steps to guard Yeung from Tam?

30.  I am not satisfied that prior to the assault, Kai Shing knew or reasonably foresaw that Yeung would be exposed to danger of violence by Tam at work and thus became under the duty to take precautionary steps to guard Yeung from such danger.  Kai Shing was neither in breach of its duty as employer nor in breach of general duty of care towards Yeung.  In the circumstances, it was not unreasonable to leave it to Yeung to evaluate the situation and to exercise common sense when dealing with his subordinates in the execution of his duties as supervisor.

31.  As to the alleged statutory duties, Yeung relies on the Occupiers Liability Ordinance, Cap 314 (“OLO”).  In view of the factual allegations, OLO is just irrelevant.  As to the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance, Cap 509 (“OSHO”), the relevant duty of the employer does not materially differ from the employer’s implied contractual duty of care discussed above.  In line with the above discussion, I do not see how Kai Shing was in breach of such statutory duty either.

32.  Liability of Kai Shing is not established; and this part of the claim must be dismissed.

Contributory negligence

33.  Kai Shing raises the defence of contributory negligence.  Essentially Kai Shing suggests that Yeung should have avoided conducting himself that might provoke Tam at the material time.  In my view, the conduct of Yeung at the time was not extraordinary.  He should not be to blame for exercising his authority and executing his duty as shift supervisor.  It was Tam’s resorting to violence that exceeded reasonable expectation.  Had I found that Kai Shing is liable, there would have been no basis for finding contributory negligence on the part of Yeung.

QUANTUM

34.  Yeung was born in 1962 and aged 44 at the time of the incident.  He is 51 years old now.

Injuries and treatment

35.  After the assault, Yeung was sent to the hospital. Medical examination revealed swelling, haematoma and laceration with bleeding over the right temporal region.  Tenderness was noted on the right side of the neck.  There were marked tenderness over the left lower lateral chest wall and mild tenderness over the right upper anterior chest wall.  Bruise was noted over the base of the right thumb.  X-ray revealed no fracture.  The laceration was sutured.

36.  For complaint about headache with tinnitus and dizziness, Yeung was referred to consult the neurosurgical department a week later.  Examination showed no neurological deficit.  CT scan showed no abnormalities either.  The headache and dizziness were partially relieved by medications.  Yeung’s condition became stable.

37.  After the expiry of his sick leave towards the end of August 2008 (a total of 795 days), Yeung reported duties at the Estate, though not assigned to the role of shift supervisor.  He complained about difficulty in coping with work, feeling frightened in face of stressful events or aggressive persons.  He took analgesic daily.  Just before mid-May 2009, he was again assigned to the role of shift supervisor and overnight shift.  But he complained about anxiety and symptoms of post-concussional syndrome.  He felt dizzy after work and attended the hospital on 10 July 2009.  Since then, Yeung has been on further sick leave up to now.

38.  The medical records show that it was also in 2009 when Yeung started to attend psychological and psychiatric out-patient treatment.  Neurological assessment done in 2010 indicated that his cognitive functions were intact.  Only that his mood was depressed due to complaint about multiple persistent pain.  The psychiatrist report indicates that Yeung suffered from moderate depressive episode, which was mostly related to increased work stress instead of the injury.  The further sick leave give was considered to be unrelated to his injury.

Medical expert evidence

39.  With leave of the court, the parties have adduced the following medical expert evidence:

(1) joint neurologist report of Dr Yu Yuk Ling and Dr Edmund Woo dated 18 June 2010;

(2) joint psychiatrist report of Dr Benjamin Lai and Dr Wong Chung Kwong dated 17 June 2010; and

(3) joint orthopaedist report of Dr Johnson C K Lam and Dr Patrick Wong Kwok Shing dated 28 June 2011.

Neurological

40.  Dr Yu and Dr Woo examined Yeung on 1 June 2010.

41.  The doctors agreed that Yeung sustained mild head injury with no loss of consciousness or post-traumatic amnesia.  There was mild neck injury, which gave rise to soft tissue injury and pain, but no damage to the spinal cord or nerve root.  Yeung had symptoms of post-concussional syndrome.

42.  Dr Yu opined that Yeung’s permanent impairment, with improvement of the post-concussional syndrome following successful treatment of his depression, should be about 2%.  Dr Woo opined that Yeung had no permanent residual neurological deficit.  He considered the complaint of relapse of headache and evolution of a completely new symptom of neck pain more than 2 years after the incident to be inconsistent with traumatic brain disease.  He doubted if such current symptoms had any neurological basis.

43.  Nevertheless the doctors did not differ much in respect of the appropriate sick leave.  Dr Woo would give 6 months and Dr Yu would give 9 months.  Either would have expired well before Yeung in fact resumed work in 2008.  The doctors agreed that from the neurological perspective, Yeung should be able to resume his pre-incident employment.  Dr Yu added that Yeung might have mildly compromised work capacity whereas Dr Woo considered that there should be no loss of earning capacity.

Psychiatric

44.  Dr Lai and Dr Wong examined Yeung on 2 June 2010.

45.  The doctors agreed that Yeung suffered from adjustment disorder with depressive mood; only that Dr Wong opined that that lasted until about October 2008.  As mentioned, in May 2009, Yeung demonstrated symptoms of adjustment disorder with depressed mood again.

46.  As to the symptoms demonstrated since May 2009, Dr Lai opined that they were compatible with the circumstances of the assault incident and the associated aftermath.  However he acknowledged that the medical information did not indicate that Yeung had any significant underlying physical pathology after the incident that might affect his ability to resume his pre-incident job and daily living activities.  There was no medical information that indicated that the incident still had adverse psychosocial factors affecting him or starting to affect him in mid-2009.  On this basis, the doctor considered that the psychiatric symptoms in 2009 could not be explained by reference to the incident in 2006 or its aftermath.  The subsequent worsening of the symptoms also could not be explained by reference to the incident.  Dr Wong opined that the symptoms since 2009 were not the result of the incident in 2006.

47.  Noting that Yeung was able to resume and continue working since October 2008, Dr Lai considered that Yeung’s psychiatric symptoms then should be mild and the permanent impairment was in the range of 1-3%.  Dr Wong assessed the degree of impairment to be 1%, subject to his opinion that the current symptoms were not caused by the assault in 2006.  Both doctors agreed that Yeung should be able to resume his pre-incident job.  The adverse effect of the symptoms on his work capacity, in Dr Lai’s opinion, should be mild.

Orthopaedic

48.  Dr Lam and Dr Wong examined Yeung on 20 June 2011.

49.  It was mainly Yeung’s complaint about neck pain that resulted in the obtaining of orthopaedic expert evidence.  Both doctors noted the lack of mention of neck pain in the government neurologist report.  The lack of organic lesion also could not explain the subjective symptom.  Soft tissue contusion should gradually improve with time and attend maximal improvement in a few weeks or months depending on the severity.  Dr Wong found no reason to believe that a mild contusion in 2006 could suddenly cause increased and severe neck pain some 3 years later in 2009.

50.  Dr Lam opined that it was likely that Yeung was still genuine about his complaint about neck pain; only that the pain should be mild to moderate.

51.  Both doctors opined that any neck condition had reached maximum improvement; and Yeung should be able to resume his pre-incident job.  Dr Lam opined that there would be mild reduction in work capacity whereas Dr Wong considered such reduction should be minimal.

Yeung’s submission

52.  Mr Law for Yeung invited me not to attach too much weight to the medical expert evidence; but to consider Yeung’s evidence in respect of the effect of the injury on his condition and working capacity.  Clearly causation is a question of fact for the court to decide; and the medical expert evidence provides the necessary assistance in this regard, including the objective testing of the evidence of Yeung.  The reminder by the Court of Appeal in Li Sau Keung v Maxcredit Engineering Ltd [2004] 1 HKC 434 (at §54) is noted.  But considering all the evidence, I see no good reason to hesitate in attaching due weight to the medical expert evidence.

Other evidence

53.  Amongst others, there was also the surveillance evidence.  Yeung was seen capable of managing his daily activities, including driving a 7-seater van.  Nothing remarkable in the course of those activities captured could be detected.

Pain suffering and loss of amenities (PSLA)

54.  Yeung claims a sum of HK$380,000 for PSLA.  Kai Shing suggested HK$180,000, which was increased to HK$200,000 in court.  Mr Law for Yeung referred to Joan Carol Boivin v Wong King Yin, HCPI 195/2000 (14 February 2001); and CMY v Tam Siu Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 604.  Mr Wong for Kai Shing referred to Chang Tsun Tein v Wai Lee Scaffolding Co Ltd, DCPI 818/2008 (26 May 2010); Lam Yim Fong v Advara Investment Ltd, DCPI 2084/2011 (8 March 2013).

55.  Counsel highlighted various aspects of the medical evidence.  Considering them and the personal circumstances of Yeung, which differ from those in the comparables cited, I award HK$220,000 under this head of claim.

Future medical expenses

56.  Yeung claims HK$40,000 for future expenses on physiotherapy, ENT specialist and clinical psychological or psychiatric treatment.

57.  From the neurological perspective, Dr Yu suggested that Yeung might need to consult his family doctor for headache on a need basis.  He estimated 4 times at HK$300 each.  Dr Woo considered that there was no indication for any need for regular neurological evaluation.

58.  From the psychiatric perspective, Dr Lai suggested that Yeung might need psychiatric treatment once a month for another year.  5 to 6 sessions of psychological treatment were suggested.  These could continue at the public sector where psychiatric treatment cost about HK$200 per session and psychological treatment cost about HK$100 per session.  Dr Wong concurred with Dr Lai.

59.  As to the orthopaedic perspective, as mentioned, both experts opined that Yeung has reached maximal improvement.  No future treatment was recommended.

60.  There is no medical evidence to suggest that treatment should be sought from the private sector.  On the above basis, Mr Wong is prepared to concede an award under this head in the total sum of HK$4,200 (being HK$300 x 4 times + HK$200 x 12 months + HK$100 x 6 sessions).  I accept that to be reasonable in the circumstances.

Miscellaneous expenses

61.  Yeung claims medical expenses, travelling expenses and expenses on tonic food in the respective sums of HK$12,000, HK$4,000 and HK$4,000.  The total sum of HK$20,000 is agreed.

Loss of earnings (with MPF)

62.  There is no dispute that Yeung should be compensated for his loss of earnings during the initial sick leave period until the end of October 2008.  Loss of earnings (including MPF) for the 26 months (795 days) amounted to HK$306,075.  The dispute lies in whether he has become incapable of resuming his pre-incident job as alleged.

63.  Yeung resumed and continued his pre-incident job for months before he stopped in mid-2009.  According to him, he has become incapable of managing any kind of work at all since 2009.  Yet in support of his claim for future loss of earnings, Mr Law for him accepted that he was under a duty to mitigate his loss; and proposed that it would be reasonable to assume that he should be able to earn HK$6,500-7,500 from no other job but as a security guard!  In view of the alleged inability of Yeung to cope with the nature of his pre-incident job, I have difficulty in understanding this proposition.

64.  In any event, considering all the evidence, and notwithstanding the extent of future medical treatment recommended and the mild compromise on his working capacity, I do not accept that as a matter of fact the condition of Yeung as a result of the injury in 2006 has rendered him incapable of resuming his pre-incident work after the expiry of his sick leave in 2008 or subsequently in 2009.  I am not satisfied that his absence from work (and sick leave) since July 2009 were objectively attributable to his alleged disability as a result of the 2008 incident or its aftermath.  As Mr Wong put it, the necessary causal link is not established.

65.  On this basis, I make no award of future loss of earnings.

Loss of earning capacity

66.  This is to compensate for the handicap in the labour market translated into the likelihood of the injured person in failing to obtaining or securing his job as a result of his disability.

67.  The evidence discussed above impress me, and the experts, that the degree of compromise on Yeung’s earning capacity attributable to the 2006 incident would be minimal.  Acknowledging that, I am prepared to award a lump sum of no more than HK$50,000.

The award

68.  In summary:

PSLA	HK$ 220,000
Loss of earnings Pre-trial Future Loss of earning capacity Future medical expenses Miscellaneous expenses Total:	HK$ 306,075 nil HK$ 50,000 HK$ 4,200 HK$ 20,000 HK$ 600,275

69.  Credit should be given to the employees’ compensation in the sum of HK$307,767.10.

70.  Interest runs at 2% per annum on general damages from the date of writ and at 4% per annum on special damages from the date of the accident.  Interest since judgment runs at the judgment rate until full payment.

COSTS

71.  The interlocutory judgment against Tam includes costs.  In view of the amount recovered, I think it is only fair that such costs should be taxed on the District Court scale.

ORDER

72.  As against Tam, damages are assessed as above with costs to be taxed on the District Court scale.

73.  As against Kai Shing, the claim is dismissed with costs, including any costs reserved, to be taxed on the High Court scale if not agreed.

74.  In both cases, Yeung’s own costs shall be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulation.

75.  Yeung and Kai Shing have 14 days to apply to vary the above costs order between them or the same will become absolute.

[1]referring to Lister & Ors v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 1311

[2]In similar context: Tam Sau Fong v Sheng Kung Hui Diocesan Welfare Council [2002] 3 HKLRD 431; Li Hoi Shuen v Man Ming Engineering Trading Co Ltd [2006] 1 HKLRD 84; Cheng Loon Yin v Secretary for Justice & Anor [2006] 1 HKLRD 871; Ling Man Kuen v Chow Chan Ming & Anor, DCPI 1445/2005 (21 August 2006); Chan Ah Kwong v Yan Cheuk Lun & Ors, HCPI 287/2005 (10 August 2009); 林土陽v寬泰貿易有限公司經營心粥館, HCPI 251/2005 (13 May 2009); and Wu Leung Kui Jacky v Leung Ming Yun & Ors, DCPI 1154/2008 (7 March 2011)