← All Authorities
Hong Kong Leading Case duty of care

Li Siu Lun v Commissioner for Transport

(2013) 16 HKCFAR 1
JurisdictionHong Kong
CourtHK Court of Final Appeal
Year2013
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Duty of care in Hong Kong negligence law follows the Caparo three-stage approach: foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.

Key Principle

duty of care in HK follows the Caparo three-stage approach: foreseeability, proximity, fair just and reasonable

Area of Law

Tort and Negligence

Related Cases

Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 215 CLR 1

Costs of raising a healthy child born following negligent sterilisation advice are recoverable as damages in a wrongful birth claim.

Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562

HCA held that a general neighbourhood principle cannot determine duty of care; coherence of the law acts as a constraining factor in novel duty situations.

Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180

High Court of Australia established a multi-factor approach to pure economic loss, considering vulnerability, assumption of responsibility, and control in determining duty of care.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Li Siu Lun v Commissioner for Transport and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Li Siu Lun v Commissioner for ...