LI XIAO YOU v. FUGRO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES (HK) LTD & OTHERS

HCPI 1287/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES NO. 1287 OF 1999

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This is an assessment of damages in respect of injuries suffered by the plaintiff in an accident at work on 20 November 1996. The facts are set out in my judgment of 26 November 2001 after a hearing to determine the apportionment of liability between the 2nd and 3rd defendants, it being accepted that there was no liability as regards the 1st defendant, nor any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The 3rd defendant, Third Party, did not appear at the hearing of the assessment, the solicitors acting having recently come off the record. On the first day of the hearing, counsel for the plaintiff and the 1st defendant came to an agreement as to appropriate sums to be awarded under each head of damages, but as these cannot bind the 3rd defendant, I will consider them here, and if I consider them reasonable in the circumstances of this case, make an assessment accordingly.

2. Briefly the facts are that the plaintiff was employed by the 1st defendant at the site of the Mass Transit Railway Central Station as a geological surveying technician. On 20 November 1996 at about 1.00 pm, he was taking measurements with a colleague, when a number of plywood boards fell from a tower crane by which they were being transported across the site, one of which struck him and caused severe injuries. The 1st defendant, against whom proceedings have since been discontinued, was a sub-contractor of the 2nd defendant, the principal contractor on the site, and the 3rd defendant and third party was a further sub-contractor. Judgment was entered against the 2nd and 3rd defendants on 21 June 2001, with damages to be assessed, and trial of the issue as to apportionment of liability was ordered as between the 2nd and 3rd defendants. At that trial I found liability as to 60% against the 3rd defendant, and 40% against the 2nd defendant.

3. The plaintiff suffered severe injuries, principally to his back, where he sustained a fracture of the 5th thoracic vertebra and a burst fracture of the 12th thoracic vertebra, together with multiple rib fractures and haemopneumothorax, a small subarachnoid haemorrhage, and a right brachial plexus injury. He did not regain consciousness until five days later and spent a total of three months in Queen Mary Hospital, of which about one month was on mechanically assisted ventilation, followed by nine months at the Maclehose Medical Rehabilitation Centre. The injuries resulted in total paralysis of his lower limbs, loss of feeling from his nipples downwards, and weakness in his right upper arm. He is permanently wheelchair-bound and cannot stand or walk unaided.

4. The plaintiff is now 30 years old, having been born in Wu Hua, Guangdong Province, Mainland China on 4 October 1971. He came from a poor family but, through hard work and studies he gained entry to, and graduated from, the Geological Training College at Guangzhou and obtained a post at the Guangdong Province Earthquake Bureau. He had then commenced further study for a degree qualification in order to take up a higher position. This was interrupted by his posting to Hong Kong on a two year contract during which the accident happened, but he intended to resume it upon his return. The accident therefore ended the Plaintiff's chances of completing his university education and his prospects of marriage to a Ms Ye Li Hua (Yip Lai Fa), his steady girlfriend, and what would have been a successful life and career in Guangzhou and abroad.

5. The plaintiff, in addition to the paralysis of his lower limbs, also suffers some pain in his right shoulder, particularly when pushing his wheelchair along, and has to support himself when sitting without back support. He has some pain in his back and suffers involuntary spasms of the lower limbs. He is impotent and suffers both urinary and bowel incontinence. He has to use a catheter and suppositories to evacuate his bladder and bowels, the former resulting in frequent urinary tract infections. He also has some constriction in his chest and breathing difficulties on exertion. Nor surprisingly, he has some psychiatric disorders and depression which require counselling, but it is clear that he is a strong character who is making the most of what he has, and exhibits in his witness statement, which the parties accept as his evidence, a positive outlook. He is able to feed himself, but not cook, and can transfer himself in and out of his wheelchair, manoeuvre it on the flat, and bathe himself, although he often needs assistance when he is ill, and for some movements he finds difficult.

Pain suffering and loss of amenities

6. As I have already observed, the plaintiff has suffered devastating injuries for a young man, only 25 at the date of the accident, who had a bright future with prospects of a successful career, which would have put him among the privileged minority in China. He now has little expectation of any permanent personal relationship nor family of his own. In order to ensure proximity to suitable regular treatment, he has to live in Guangzhou, a long way from his family, including his elderly parents. The sum suggested by counsel for the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant by way of general damages is $1,700,000.00.

7. In Lai Chi Pon v. Toto Steel & Iron Works Ltd & ors [1997] 2 HKC 741, Cheung J awarded $1,500,000.00 to the plaintiff who had suffered similar injuries, and in Tse Lai Yin Lily & ors v Incorporated Owners of Albert House & ors HCPI 828 0f 1997 the damages were put at $1,800,000.00 by Suffiad J for a 44 year old plaintiff in a similar situation but with greater psychiatric problems. A more recent decision, in Chan Yuet Lui Rebecca v. The Ritz Carlton Ltd & ors HCPI 658 of 2000, placed the damages at $1,700,000.00 for a 31 year old paraplegic. The case before me clearly comes within the disaster category and, on the authorities referred to, I am satisfied that the sum suggested here of $1,700,000.00 is a proper figure to represent the loss which the plaintiff has suffered.

Loss of earnings

8. The plaintiff has clearly also suffered a total loss of earnings and has no realistic prospect of obtaining work in the future. The loss of earnings for the balance of the time he would have worked under his contract in Hong Kong can be calculated by multiplying the salary of $16,400.00 by the 5 months remaining after the accident, giving a total of $82,000.00. From 19 April 1997 to date of trial, a period of some 60 months, the evidence, which I accept, is that he would have earned between RMB6,000.00 and RMB9,000.00 a month on his return to his employment in China, giving a median of RMB7,500.00. Reducing this by 5% to reflect the present exchange rate with the Hong Kong dollar, which will also apply to all other RMB sums in this assessment, gives a figure of $427,500.00, and a total pre-trial of $509,500.00. The parties before me suggest a reduction to reflect liability for tax, and I agree with the resulting figure of $500,000.00.

9. As to future loss, the parties suggest a multiplier of 16, which again I consider reasonable. Applying this to present monthly earnings of RMB9,000.00 one arrives at a figure of $1,641,600.00, again allowing for the same exchange rate, and with a similar reduction for tax liability, this can be rounded down to $1,600,000.00.

Medical and other expenses

10. There have been inevitably a great number of expenses incurred by the plaintiff by way of medical expenses, purchase of medical requirements, transportation, accommodation and other expenses, which I do not propose to list in detail. The original claim was for a total pre-trial of $923,620.00. After detailed review by counsel of the items claimed, the 2nd defendant has conceded a total of $746,703.00, which I agree were all reasonably incurred by the plaintiff, and which sum I will award here.

11. It is also inevitable that the plaintiff will incur in future not only similar expenses on a regular basis, but also medical expenses including treatment by Chinese doctors and attendance at Chung Shan Hospital for emergencies such as urinary tract infections, regular check ups at Guangdong Province Medicine Hospital, regular follow ups in Hong Kong twice a year with physiotherapy reviews, occupational therapy, and psychological counselling. There will additionally be transportation costs associated with these. I agree with the parties that an appropriate multiplier to adopt for these is 18. The cost of this, which I accept, may be summarized as follows:

a.	Continuation of the stretching, vitamin injection and acupuncture by the Chinese doctor: RMB 1,500 a month, i.e. $(1,500 × 12 × 95%) = $17,100 a year × 18 = $307,800.00
b.	Attendance at Chung Shan Hospital for emergency such as urinary tract infections: RMB230 every 3 months = $(230 × 4 ×95%) = $874 a year × 18 = $15,732.00
c.	Regular examination at Guangdong Province Medicine Hospital: RMB1,500 every 3 months = $(1,500 × 4 × 95%) = $5,700 a year × 18 = $102,600.00
d.	Urological follow-ups in Hong Kong, including urine tests, urodynamic tests, kidney scans, etc: $8,800 a year × 18 = $158,400.00
e.	Physiotherapy review: $1,000 × 2 = $2,000 a year × 18 = $36,000.00
f.	Occupational therapy: $1,200 × 2 = $2,400 a year × 18 = $43,200.00
g.	Psychological Counselling: $90,000.00
h.	Transportation cost to and from Hong Kong: $3,000 × 2 × 18 = $108,000.00

Giving a total of $861,732.00.

12. The plaintiff presently employs a domestic helper and is assisted by his brother on a full-time basis. This has proved adequate and it is reasonable that it should continue. The cost of this is assessed at RMB1,200.00 a month times 13 months for the domestic helper, and RMB1,200.00 a month for the value of the brother's services, which with the same multiplier gives a total of $513,000.00.

13. The plaintiff also requires a considerable amount of equipment and aids to allow him to lead as normal a life as is possible in his situation, including wheelchairs, commode, grab rails and hoists, and numerous other items in addition to personal hygiene consumables. The cost of these I accept on the evidence will amount to a total of $1,388,513.00 over the same period. In addition, the parties have suggested, and I accept, a further 15% to allow for maintenance and replacement of these items. This gives total under this head of $1,596,790.00.

Transportation costs

14. The Plaintiff claims damages for future transportation costs based on the purchase and maintenance of a new private motor vehicle which would by driven by his brother or other companion. The parties have suggested that the multiplicand should be assessed by taking a sum of RMB240,000.00, being the median between the Plaintiff's claim for RMB370,000.00 and the 2nd Defendant's suggested purchase price of a Shanghai Buick SCX at RMB112,800.00, and annual recurring expenses of RMB26,000.00. To this the parties have suggested that a discount of 40% should be given to reflect all the uncertainties and the possibility that the Plaintiff would at sometime in the future have purchased his own motor vehicle in any event. Taking a replacement period of 8 years, the Plaintiff's claim for future transportation costs may be assessed in the sum of (RMB240,000.00 ÷ 8 + RMB26,000) × 95% × 18 × 60% = $574,560.00. I accept that these figures are reasonable in the circumstances and should be awarded.

Holiday expenses

15. The Plaintiff also claims damages for the increased costs of holidays as he will require assistance on holiday and the full time help of someone such as his brother or some other carer or companion. The parties have suggested an annual sum of RMB8,000.00 giving the sum of RMB8,000.00 × 18 × 95% = $152,000.00. This I consider reasonable and should be awarded.

Accommodation

16. The Plaintiff is now living in a 90 sq metre flat at Wah King New City at a monthly rent of RMB2,400.00. There are three bedrooms for himself, the helper and his brother. The Plaintiff needs a room for his equipment and when his parents visit him. Having regard to the Plaintiff's description of the flat and the photographs and having particular regard to the expert's report of Mr Joseph Kwan I find that a flat of similar size is needed by the Plaintiff.

17. It is suggested by the parties and accepted by me that the Plaintiff requires accommodation in a modern estate in Guangzhou and that his parent's home in the village was unsuitable for him. It is also suggested and agreed by me that the Plaintiff's damages under this head should be assessed on the basis of the rental of a flat similar to the one which the Plaintiff currently occupies, and that Plaintiff's claim for alternative accommodation should be assessed as follows :-

Rental: RMB2,400 × 12 × 18 years × 95% = $492,480.00

Costs of adaptation: to be incurred every 5 years: RMB31,000 × 18 ÷ 5 × 95% = $106,020.00

Total award:- $598,500.00

18. There will also be increased recurrent expenditure for the plaintiff as a result of the accident such as increased electricity and internet charges. This arises from the fact that the Plaintiff will have to spend more time at home. He also spends a lot of his time on the internet. The parties have suggested and it is agreed by me that increased expenditure of RMB500.00 per month is a reasonable figure. This gives RMB500.00 x 95% x 18 years, giving a figure of $102,600.00 which the I consider is a reasonable award for these additional expenses.

Interest

19. In respect of pre-trial loss of earnings and expenses, I accept that a proper rate of interest is 4.07% per annum. This gives a figure of $278,846.00, being $500,000.00 + $746,703.00 x 4.07% x 65 months ÷ 12. However, it is also accepted by the parties that there should be some reduction to reflect the receipt of Employees' Compensation. This figure will accordingly be reduced to $200,000.00 to make allowance for this.

20. Interest on general damages of $1,700,000.00 will be at the usual rate of 2% from date of writ giving a sum of $56,667.00.

22. There will accordingly be judgment for the plaintiff for this sum with costs to the plaintiff to be taxed, with a certificate for two counsel, and the plaintiff's own costs to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.

23. There will be a stay of execution for 21 days from the date hereof.

Representation:

Mr Michael Ozorio S C and Mr Victor Gidwani, instructed by Messrs Robin Bridge & John Liu, for the Plaintiff

Mr Mohan Bharwaney, instructed by Messrs Lau, Chan & Ko, for the 2nd Defendant

The 3rd Defendant/Third Party did not appear and was not represented

HCPI 1287/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 1287 OF 1999

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. These proceedings arise out of an accident sustained by the plaintiff at work on 20 November 1996. He was employed by the 1st defendant at the site of the Mass Transit Railway Central Station as a geological surveying technician. On that date at about 1.00 p.m., he was taking measurements with a colleague, when a number of plywood boards fell from a tower crane by which they were being transported across the site, one of which struck him and caused severe injuries. The 1st defendant, against whom proceedings have since been discontinued, was a sub-contractor of the 2nd defendant, the principal contractor on the site, and the 3rd defendant and third party was a further sub-contractor. Judgment was entered against the 2nd and 3rd defendants on 21 June 2001, with damages yet to be assessed, and trial of the issue as to apportionment of liability was ordered as between the 2nd and 3rd defendants. It is with this that I am now concerned.

2. The 2nd defendant was, as I have said, the principal contractor on the site, and had sub-contracted to the 3rd defendant the construction of the South West Tower. The tower crane involved in the accident was provided by the 2nd defendant and operated by a driver, Mr Chiu Tsan Kin, who was employed by them. The tower crane was available for use by sub-contractors on the site by arrangement with a foreman.

3. On the day in question, employees of the 2nd defendant needed to transport a number of plywood boards across the site for use in the construction of hoardings, and their foreman, Mr Ng Wah, instructed two of their workmen, Mr Shin Moon Chi and Mr Li Tin Sung, to rig a pallet on which were stacked about 12 boards for transport by the crane. They prepared the load by passing two webbing slings, each about 11.6 metres long and with each end turned back to form an eye, beneath the pallet, meeting at the top of the load with one end passing through the eye. The hook of the crane was then lowered and the ends of the slings attached to shackles on wires connected to the hook. The crane driver was then instructed by hand-held radio to start the lift and it was raised initially about one metre to check whether the load was properly balanced, and for the workmen to strike the slings between the top of the boards and the shackles, with pieces of wood, to tighten the slings round the load. The driver was then further instructed to carry on with the lifting and transportation, and the load was raised and the crane commenced to swing to the right in a clockwise motion. When the load was at about 20 metres high, the boards began to slip off the pallet until all had fallen to the ground below, bouncing off some railings and the rear of a crawler crane, and one striking the plaintiff.

4. Following the accident, there were enquiries by both the 2nd defendant and a Factory Inspector, and two reports compiled, and the 2nd defendant was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, an offence under Regulation 7J of the Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Lifting Appliances and Lifting Gear) Regulations, Cap 59, of failing to ensure the security of a load.

5. In order to consider where the blame for this accident lies, or in what proportions the blame should be shared, I have to look at what are the possible causes of it, those which the parties have put forward, and which is or are the most likely. The various possibilities may be summarised as follows: (i) careless control of the crane by the driver; (ii) using an improper method of rigging the load; (iii) failure to rig it safely. If the method used to rig it was improper, but the usual method on that site, the question then arises whether the 2nd defendant was at fault for condoning it and whether either or both defendants were in breach of regulations. I will look at the evidence in respect of each of the possibilities.

The crane driver

6. The case of the 3rd defendant may be briefly stated that, as they claim the load was rigged by them properly and safely, it must have been something the 2nd defendant's crane driver did to cause the accident, either by raising the load, or slewing the crane, too fast. There is also a suggestion that the load may have been handled in such a way as to cause it to collide with something, thereby unbalancing the load. The difficulty they face with these allegations is the almost total lack of any contemporary evidence. Of all the witnesses interviewed by the factory inspector and the 2nd defendant's investigators, either on the same day as the accident, or the next day, not one refers to any mishandling of the crane, or any negligent or improper act by the crane driver, including their own workmen. Indeed, Mr Li Tin Sung, one of those workmen, gave evidence before me that the driver had raised the load to one metre as requested for it to be checked, and the slings struck to tighten them, and was then asked to raise it further, which he did, not moving it away until it was raised to above the height of a person. He saw nothing more until he heard a bang. Both he and his colleague Mr Shin were asked by the 2nd defendant's investigator, on the day of the accident, whether the speed of lifting was fast. Mr Li said "not really", and Mr Shin, "not very fast". In his witness statement, Mr Li said that he saw the plywood being raised steadily from the ground.

7. The evidence upon which the 3rd defendant relies as to a collision is the statement by the 2nd defendant's safety officer in their report, where he gives as one of the possible causes of the accident, with several others:

"The height of the plywood load during the slewing operation might not be high enough to avoid its direct impact on the structures in the vicinity or the premature early lowering of the load giving the same result."

However, this was not a finding on the evidence, as there was none to support it, but little more than speculation as to what might have been a cause. The evidence since takes the suggestion no further, and the investigations found no damage to any structure from such a collision. The only damage was minor and that to a crawler crane, which was struck by part of the load falling. There could have been no collision with the crawler crane's jib, which the evidence shows was not near the direction of travel of the load.

8. I have also been shown the transcript of the court proceedings against the 2nd defendant referred to above. In those proceedings, a Mr Sutherland, appearing in person for the company, said in mitigation that the accident had been caused by the load hitting an upright piece of scaffolding and it was an error of judgment by the crane driver. I find this statement totally inexplicable. As I have pointed out, there was no evidence then, and there is none now, that any collision took place, and I can only assume that Mr Sutherland was coming to his own conclusions without referring to the statements of witnesses nor the reports prepared at the time.

9. Similarly there is no evidence at the time of any complaint against the driver Mr Chiu. It is only in the witness statements prepared for this hearing earlier this year that Mr Li, and Mr Ng Wah, claim that complaints about him and his unsafe handling of the crane had been made to the 2nd defendant's site agent. I regret that I cannot accept that evidence. There is no record of such complaint. The 2nd defendant's safety officer, who would surely have been informed, was not aware of it, and it was not mentioned as a possible cause at the time.

10. There is accordingly no evidence here capable of supporting any allegation of wrongdoing by the crane driver and I have to exclude this as a possible cause of the accident.

Rigging of the load

11. The method of rigging a load such as that which was used here involves the slings passing over two sides holding the pile of loose boards together. It relies on the pressure exerted by the weight of the boards, here about 600 kilos, to pull the slings together at the top where they form a triangle meeting at the shackle connecting them to the crane. The tension is increased by the riggers striking the slings to take up any slack where they pass round the load. However, as was pointed out by the factory inspector in his report, the other sides were totally unsecured. And the load was not otherwise secured, resulting in any imbalance during the lifting operation allowing the boards to slide over. Once this movement has started, the imbalance will necessarily increase, and with nothing to prevent them then sliding sideways, a fall is inevitable. This is not rough timber, but plywood, which is relatively smooth, and while it is held together and compacted by pressure of the slings and the weight of the boards themselves, in the absence of a strap passing round the ends, should any imbalance occur during transit, it is easy to imagine how one board sliding could commence a chain reaction. The slings, after all, would only be in contact with all the boards if the pallet is precisely the same width as them, and all the boards are precisely the same size. Is this were not so, then it is only the weight of the boards above keeping each in place.

12. In these circumstances, there is little, if any, room for error, or, more likely, movement and swinging of the load in transit caused by the inevitable slewing of the crane, or possibly, which is not the case here, by the effect of wind. I am therefore driven to the conclusion that this method of securing such a load for transport by crane in inherently unsafe and fraught with danger.

13. However, it is clear from the evidence that this is the usual method employed on many building sites in Hong Kong. Not only do the 3rd defendant's witnesses say that this is the accepted method, and that which they have been taught, but Mr Chiu, the 2nd defendant's own crane driver, with 17 or 18 years' experience, gave evidence that he was familiar with this method and it was usual at this site. There is no evidence that they were ever told not to do so, the safety courses which they attended only referring generally to the importance of rigging loads securely, and only in the case of pipes being told to secure the ends. In spite of the factory inspector's recommendation that such loads should be secured at the ends as well to prevent slipping, and the practice being introduced on this site after the accident, I understand that it is still not regularly done on other sites.

14. It is also the 2nd defendant's case that the workmen who rigged the load did not do so sufficiently securely and safely. There can be no doubt that these were not experienced and trained riggers. They were general unskilled workmen, but who had been taught by their foreman, Mr Ng Wah, how to secure such loads. They had clearly been instructed of the importance of balancing the load, which was one of the things to be checked on the initial raising of the load to one metre, and of securing it tightly, which was the purpose of striking the slings with wood. There is no evidence here that they did not do as they had been instructed, that the slings were not positioned correctly, nor that the load had not been made as safe as this method permitted. Any other view would be mere speculation, and I am satisfied that they did their best with what I consider to be an unsafe method, but that which they had been taught to do.

Liability of the 2nd defendant

15. Mr Cheung, one of two safety officers employed at the site by the 2nd defendant, conceded that, in the safety courses the workmen were not specifically told that loads such as this should have transverse straps or slings as well, but said that he considered the method not acceptable and if he saw it being used, he would stop it and inform the foreman not to do it. I also find this evidence unreliable. As I have already found, the method was the usual one on this site and on many others. Loads such as this must have been a regular occurrence on the site, and between himself and his nine colleagues in the safety team, making regular inspections of working practices, they cannot have been unaware of the method used. Further, in his own declaration to the factory inspector, he describes the same method of slings as being the one usually used, and illustrates it with a diagram, which shows no other strap or sling other than the two supporting the load.

16. It is apparent that, as there had not hitherto been such an accident, and the load itself from a cursory inspection did to look unsafe, they had been lulled into a false sense of security, and did not appreciate the element of the danger from this method. To that extent they had condoned the practice, only prohibiting it afterwards. A classic case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. For this they must accept a degree of responsibility.

Breach of regulations

17. The 2nd defendant has already been convicted of failing to ensure the security of the load under Regulation 7J, referred to above. This is, as Mr Bharwaney for the 2nd defendant has pointed out, an offence of strict liability. What of the liability of the 3rd defendant under these regulations? To be liable under this regulation one has to be the "owner" of a lifting appliance. The definition of owner is extremely wide and, as well as the lessee or hirer, includes a foreman or person in charge or having control or management of it. This crane was available for use by the 3rd defendant, as well as others, although owned in the narrow sense of the word by the 2nd defendant. However, in the case of each use of the crane by the 3rd defendant, it is their foreman who is giving instructions to the driver, and controlling what is being done with it. To that extent, they must have, for that limited period, the control or management of it, and can accordingly fall within the definition of owner. On the basis of the same strict liability, they are equally in breach of this regulation.

Conclusion

18. The principal cause of this accident was in my view the inherently unsafe method of securing plywood boards for transport by crane. This was the method which the 3rd defendant had instructed their employees to use, and, it being no part of the 2nd defendant's task to tell their independent contractors how to do the jobs for which they had contracted, subject to safety considerations which I shall come to shortly, a large part of the blame for the accident must accordingly be borne by the 3rd defendant.

19. However, as I have also found above, the 2nd defendant must have been aware of this method and done nothing to prevent it. They were very properly therefore convicted under the regulations, and must also bear a proportion of the responsibility. Under Regulation 38A of the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations, Cap. 59, they, as the contractor responsible for the site had a duty to ensure that every place of work on the site was, as far as reasonably practicable, made and kept safe for any person working there. This they clearly accepted by the provision of a safety team, regular induction safety courses provided for any workman starting work at the site, and regular inspections of work on the site. By condoning the method of work here, they equally clearly failed to keep the site safe.

20. In the circumstances, I consider that a proper division of responsibility is as to 60% for the 3rd defendant and 40% for the 2nd defendant. There will also be an order nisi for the costs of these proceedings and of this hearing to be borne by the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the same proportions.

Representation:

Mr Mohan Bharwaney, instructed by Messrs Lau, Chan & Ko, for the 2nd Defendant

Mr Jonathan Wong, instructed by Messrs M F Ko & Co., for the 3rd Defendant/Third Party