Hong Kong Court Emphasises the Importance for a Plaintiff to Prove the Mechanism of Injury as Pleaded

Personal Injuries 

In Lo Kwok Kit Sam v Leung Kwok Hung trading as Kaiser (M&E) Decoration Engineering Co and Another [2025] HKDC 495, the District Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims in relation to an alleged workplace injury in their entirety, and awarded costs on an indemnity basis to the Defendants. 

Simon Wong and Sabina Sui, instructed by Deacons, acted for the successful Defendants. 

Occurrence of the Incident 

The crux of the Plaintiff’s complaint was that, while descending a ladder, he had to step onto a pipe placed on the ground.  Consequently, he slipped due to its slippery surface.  Considering the Plaintiff’s own evidence and various contemporaneous evidence, the Court held that despite the occurrence of an accident, the Plaintiff failed to prove that the accident occurred in the manner as pleaded.  Specifically, the Court found insufficient evidence to support the Plaintiff’s claims that (1) the pipe’s surface was slippery; and (2) the Plaintiff slipped while stepping on it. 

In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied on various cases such as So Kai Wing v Sino Estates Management Limited [2024] HKDC 1829 and Wu Dip Oi formerly known as Wei Yuling v Harbour City Estates Limited [2023] HKDC 1450 (where Simon acted for the successful defendants in both cases) to emphasise the necessity for a plaintiff in a personal injuries action to prove the pleaded manner in which the accident occurred and reiterated the paramount importance of pleadings. 

Credibility of the Plaintiff 

Another noteworthy aspect of this case concerns the Court’s findings in relation to the Plaintiff’s credibility.  It is revealed under cross-examination that there were multiple inconsistencies in the Plaintiff’s evidence, that the Plaintiff had exaggerated the severity of his injuries and financial hardship, and he had concealed his post-incident employment, all of which formed the basis for the Court’s ultimate order of indemnity costs against the Plaintiff. 

Takeaway 

As cautioned by the Court, a plaintiff’s failure to prove his pleaded version of the incident is “no small matter”.  In addition to the fundamental requirement for a plaintiff to discharge his burden of proof, it also concerns fairness, as a plaintiff’s pleaded case is the one that the defendant is expected to meet and answer.  In the words of Ribeiro PJ in Sinoearn Internation Ltd v Hyundai-CCECC Joint Venture (2013) 16 HKCFAR 632 at §34, “[p]leadings are not mere formalities.  They impose a necessary discipline and are fundamental to enabling every procedural facet of the adversarial system to operate fairly”.  Claimants should ensure that their pleaded circumstances of the injuries are sufficiently supported by credible and reliable evidence. 

 

Simon Wong

“Simon is very meticulous and his advocacy is very good. His advice is practical and easy to follow whilst his preparation is unquestionable.” “Excellent communication skills with the ability to articulate arguments in a concise, professional and persuasive manner.”
Legal 500 Asia-Pacific 2025, Commercial Disputes, Labour and Employment — Leading Juniors

Simon is qualified to practise law both in Hong Kong and California USA. He specializes in personal injury litigation and commercial dispute resolution. In his personal injury practice, he has been instructed in more than 500 personal injury and medical negligence cases and has extensive experience in representing claimants as well as defendants.  Simon’s commercial litigation experience includes company matters, shareholders’ disputes, banking disputes, insolvency matter and contract claims.

Visit Simon’s profile for further details.

 

Sabina Sui

Sabina is developing a broad practice in general civil litigation, with a particular interest in personal injuries and public law matters. She is fluent in English, Cantonese and Mandarin, and accepts instructions in all areas of work.

Find out more from Sabina’s profile.

This article was first published on 9 April 2025.

Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice and seeks to set out the general principles of the law. Detailed advice should therefore be sought from a legal professional relating to the individual merits and facts of a particular case. The photographs which appear in this article are included for decorative purposes only and should not be taken as a depiction of any matter to which the case is related. The views and opinions expressed in this article/material are solely those of the members authoring it and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Denis Chang’s Chambers, or of any other member or members of Denis Chang’s Chambers.