Tort Law in Hong Kong, Third Edition


Overview   |   Table of Contents
Tort Law in Hong Kong, Third Edition

Nov 2012
Hard back

The third edition of Tort Law in Hong Kong continues the aims of previous editions, not only to provide a study text for intending lawyers, but also to provide the most up-to-date and comprehensive resource available for practitioners, academics and judges in the tort law topics under consideration. As with previous editions, the focus is very much on Hong Kong law, holding firm to the belief that the law must be studied and understood in a Hong Kong context, and within the judicial traditions according to which Hong Kong cases are decided and to which lawyers and prospective lawyers must become accustomed.

Changes from the previous edition include a new section on animal liability, an expanded treatment of professional negligence, and an expanded treatment of limitations law, which has been radically altered by decisions here and in the United Kingdom. Sections are also re-arranged, particularly in chapters 3 and 4, to better convey a sense of the subject matter and the linkages with other parts. All chapters have undergone substantial revision in light of case law developments. More than 300 new cases are cited and discussed in this edition.

Expert authorship by a leading academic 

  • Rick Glofcheski, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong


Substantially revised and up-to-date with new content across all chapters

  • Incorporates the large body of Hong Kong law that has developed in the past five years
  • Cites more than 300 new cases including: Luen Hing Fat Coating & Finishing Factory Ltd v Waan Chuen Ming (2011); Blakeney-Williams v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (2012); Oriental Press Group Ltd v Fevaworks Solutions Ltd (2012); Payam Tamiz v Google Inc (2012); Oriental Daily Publisher Ltd v Ming Pao Holdings Ltd (2012); plus many more!


Places the law in a Hong Kong context

  • Only in Hong Kong could a court decide that the burning of incense on a daily basis in the 8th floor corridor of a residential building might not be nuisance: Hu Wei Hsin v Ma Hung Wing (2011)



Hong Kong
United Kingdom