Legal Consequences | Major Fire Breaks Out

A gigantic fire incident in Tai Po was first reported at 2.51 p.m. on 26th November 2025. The fire soon grew into an inferno, with huge plumes of dark smoke billowing high into the sky at the scene at the estate. Eventually, the flames had quickly spread to 7 out of 8 blocks in the estate. As a result, forty-four people have been killed and 279 others are missing after a ferocious blaze ravaged a housing estate in Tai Po, Hong Kong, with scorching flames ripping through bamboo scaffolding on 7 residential blocks of the estate. More than 800 firefighters are tackling the blaze at the estate, which has been burning for over 18 hours.

The three men from a construction company aged between 52 and 68, namely two directors and one engineering consultant, were arrested by police on suspicion of manslaughter connected to flammable materials, including (1) mesh and protective materials on the outside of the buildings (i.e. canvas and/or sheeting on scaffoldings) that do not seem to be fireproof; and (2) Styrofoam on the building's windows. Use of such materials might be the main cause to explain why the fire spread quickly in the entire buildings.

As the use of flammable scaffold sheeting caused a serious fire that burnt the entire buildings of the estate, both the contractor company and, in appropriate circumstances, its directors and key officers could possibly face:

1. criminal prosecution under the statutory health-and-safety and fire statutes, the Factories and Industrial Undertakings regime, Occupational Safety and Health legislations, Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations, and the Fire Services Ordinance; and
2. civil liability in tort of negligence and/or occupiers’ liability and for statutory breaches, and directors/officers could be personally liable if the law imputes responsibility to them in the above circumstances.

A. Criminal and regulatory liabilities:

1. Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations, Cap.59V — duties of contractor(s):
    
2. 1. The contractors are responsible for a construction site to identify and rectify hazardous conditions, to safeguard persons working at height, and to provide and/or maintain safe access and egress under Regulations 38A and 38AA, Cap.59V.
   2. A full‑height flammable sheeting can create a “hazardous condition” (increased fire load, risk of rapid flame spread, impaired escape routes and firefighting access). If the contractor has control of the site, those duties are non‑delegable “so far as reasonably practicable”. Failure may lead to regulatory enforcement and criminal prosecution under the construction‑safety regime. See the statutory duties in Cap.59V.
      
      
3. Fire Services Ordinance, Cap.95 — fire hazard powers and offences:
    
4. 1. There is a broad definition of “fire hazard”. The Director of Fire Services has statutory power to require contractors of construction sites to take action to abate and/or close premises under Cap.95.
   2. Accordingly, the act of using highly combustible canvas and/or sheeting on scaffoldings that increases fire load and rate of fire spread, is creating and/or allowing a “fire hazard” within the meaning of Cap.95.
   3. The Director of Fire Services may treat flammable scaffold covering that materially increases fire risk or obstructs means of escape as a “fire hazard” and issue abatement notices and/or take remedial action to such constructors.
   4. Non‑compliance by such constructors may lead to prosecution and remedial orders under Cap.95. The Director of Fire Service has power to seek court orders and/or recover legal costs against such non-complying constructors under Cap.95.
      
      
5. Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Fire Precautions in Notifiable Workplaces) Regulations, Cap.59V — if a site is a “notifiable workplace”:
    
6. 1. the proprietor must maintain doors and means of escape, maintain fire escapes and firefighting equipment, take precautions regarding naked flames and sources of ignition, prohibit smoking where necessary, and ensure safe storage of inflammable substances under Cap.59V. ​
   2. if the renovation site is a “notifiable workplace” (coming within the statutory definition under Cap.59V), the presence of combustible scaffold covering that increases fire risk and may impede escape can amount to contravention of those regulations (e.g. failure to maintain means of escape and/or failure to control ignition sources under Cap.59V.
   3. the Commissioner and/or occupational safety officers have statutory power to prohibit smoking and require contractors erect prominent NO SMOKING signs and carry out related measures, and non‑compliance attracts offences under Cap.59V.

1. Buildings Ordinance, Cap.123 — orders in respect of dangerous works/buildings:
   
   
2. 1. the Building Authority may order works to cease or be remedied where building works are likely to cause a risk of injury under s.24A, Cap.123, and may declare a building dangerous and require demolition or remedial work under s.26, Cap.123.
   2. if the scaffold covering materially increases risk (for instance by obstructing means of escape or by creating a greater fire hazard), the Building Authority may issue directions under these provisions and can recover costs if remedial work is carried out by the authority under Cap.123.
      
      
3. Liabilities and duties of employers and/or occupiers of any premises and/or site are clearly set out in Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance, Cap.509:
   
   
4. 1. Contractors who employ workers must ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, safe systems of work, safe workplace, safe access/egress and adequate instruction/supervision (s.6, Cap.509 summarizes such duties).
   2. Occupiers of premises also have similar duties owed to every person visiting the workplace under s.7, Cap.509.
   3. Besides, breach under Cap.509 may attract criminal liabilities, i.e. penalties and fines; and, in serious and/or willful cases, offenders are liable for imprisonment.
      
      
5. In the decided case of HKSAR V. GAMMON CONSTRUCTION LTD - [2020] HKCA 752 / [2020] 4 HKLRD 670 / [2021] 1 HKC 253 (“Gammon Case”):
   
   
6. 1. Court of Appeal held that certain statutory duties, including such duties specified in: (1) Factories & Industrial Undertakings Ordinance, Cap.59; and (2) Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Safety Management) Regulation, Cap.59AF, attract strict and absolute liability and/or a statutory reverse burden for establishing what is “reasonably practicable” and justified strong sanctions in large scale undertakings.
   2. At the trial, the accused were convicted of: (1) failing to provide and maintain a safe system of work contrary to Cap.59; (2) failing to provide necessary instruction and supervision for the health and safety at work of persons employed at an industrial undertaking contrary to Cap.59; and (3) failing to develop, implement and maintain a safety management system, contrary to Cap 59AF.
   3. If the site falls within the Factories & Industrial Undertakings regime or specified schedules (large/industrial projects), use of flammable scaffold sheeting that increases systemic risk shall attract prosecution under those provisions. This decided case is a key authority on the seriousness of contractor obligations under that scheme.

B. Common‑law duties and civil liability:

1. A contractor who has sufficient control over the site and/or premises can be treated as an occupier and owes a duty to lawful visitors and invitees to take reasonable care for their safety. Covering scaffolds with flammable canvas that increases risk (and/or impedes escape) may be a breach of occupiers’ duty under Section 3(1) of Occupiers Liability Ordinance, Cap. 314. Such statutory duties are clearly decided in the case of KWONG CHIU V. SUNSHINE HEIGHTS LTD. - [2001] HKCFI 1078 (“Kwong Chiu Case”).
   
   
2. There are serious civil consequences. Personal injury and/or death from a fire exacerbated by flammable sheeting can lead to tort claims in negligence and occupiers’ liability. In Kwong Chiu Case, the Court held that due to failure to provide and/or maintain fire precautions and to prevent spread of smoke and/or fires in an entire building, the owner and managers of the building were negligent and acted in breach of their occupiers’ duties, and they were liable to pay damage and/or loss to all injured and deceased victims. Three individual officers of the managers were convicted of murder and manslaughter in a corresponding criminal case.
   
   
3. In many similar cases, Courts have repeatedly emphasized need for risk assessment, supervision, safe systems and communication; and failure to prevent simultaneous hazardous operations led to conviction (for e.g. Gammon Case and Kwong Chiu Case). The common law will require a reasonably prudent contractor to assess fire risks of materials used, adopt safer alternatives or mitigation, and ensure means of escape and firefighting routes are preserved.
   
   
4. Contractors who are found by Court to be liable for negligence and/or breach of occupiers’ duties, would be ordered to pay damage, loss and legal costs to injured victims and deceased victims’ family members.
   
   
5. In this fire incident, forty-four people were killed and 279 others were missing and there are countless injured victims and over hundreds of flats were totally burnt, the total amounts of damage and loss being sustained by the victims could likely exceed billions of Hong Kong dollars.

C. This fire incident has raised a serious suspicion on whether the contractor’s illegal or improper choice to use flammable mesh, canvas and/or sheeting on scaffoldings might involve bribery by suppliers in PRC (or elsewhere):

1. If the suppliers in PRC (and/or elsewhere) had/have ever offered advantages to induce procurement and/or approval from construction contractors in Hong Kong, this would create a separate and serious set of criminal and regulatory exposures in numerous construction sites in Hong Kong, in addition to the safety and/or fire liabilities already discussed aforesaid.
   
   
2. Such illegal choice of purchasing and using flammable canvas and/or sheeting on scaffoldings by contractors in Hong Kong could lead to serious consequences below:
   ​
3. 1. criminal bribery offences under Cap. 201 against the giver and the recipient (public servants or agents);
   2. possible accessory and/or conspiracy liability;
   3. proceeds‑of‑crime and/or money‑laundering exposure under the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap.455;
   4. corporate regulatory and directors’ personal liability where the corrupt conduct was with their consent/connivance or attributable to their neglect; and
   5. ICAC investigatory powers and cross‑border cooperation that can lead to seizure, restraint and mutual legal assistance.
      
      
4. Directors and/or officers of any offending contractor might be liable for primary criminal offences under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201:
   ​
5. 1. Offences by the person offering/bribing are consisting of: s.4 prohibits offering an “advantage” to a public servant (or to the Chief Executive) as an inducement or reward for acts or omissions in official capacity; s.5 (contracts), s.6 (withdrawal of tenders) and s.8 (persons having dealings with public bodies) cover particular situations. s.9 criminalizes corrupt transactions with agents (private‑sector bribery).
   2. Offences by the recipient(s), including the public servant or agent who solicits or accepts the advantage is separately criminally liable under Cap.201.
   3. s.4 expressly applies “whether in Hong Kong or elsewhere” (so offering a bribe abroad to affect a Hong Kong public servant can attract liability in Hong Kong) and courts treat s.9 (private‑sector/agent bribery) as capable of reaching cross‑border conduct, where a substantial measure of the corrupt activity took place in Hong Kong.
   4. Conviction under Cap.201 carries heavy fines and custodial terms. The court may also order payment and/or repayment of the value of advantages against the convicted offenders.
   5. The ICAC has wide investigatory powers under Cap.201 to obtain documents and information, to require production of bank/company records and to apply for restraint/restraint of property. Disclosure of an ICAC investigation is an offence under confidentiality provisions of Cap.201. The ICAC can and does investigate large construction and property projects in the recent enforcement activities.
      
      
6. Directors and/or officers of any offending contractor might also be liable for conspiracy, accessory, aiding and abetting offences. Attempted bribery, conspiracy to bribe and accessory liability (aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring) are prosecutable. The accused who assisted or conspired can be charged and punished as for the substantive offence.
   
   
7. Directors and/or officers of any offending contractor might be liable for offences relating to proceeds of crime and/or money‑laundering exposure under Cap.455: 
   ​
8. 1. If money or other benefits obtained by bribery are brought into or dealt with in Hong Kong, dealing with property which the person knows or reasonably believes represents proceeds of an indictable offence is an offence under s.25, Cap.455. This could lead to very large fines and long imprisonment terms and to restraint/confiscation orders.
   2. s.25A, Cap.455 requires disclosure of knowledge or suspicion in many circumstances and provides a route for authorized officers to obtain information.
      
      
9. Corporate and directors’ liability: 
   ​
10. 1. If an offence by a company was committed with a director’s consent, connivance or attributable to his neglect, a director/manager may be guilty of the like offence under Cap.201.
    2. Directors may also face company law consequences (accounts, duties and civil claims). The Companies Ordinance, Cap.622 and related provisions expose responsible persons to civil and/or accounting remedies and, in certain contexts, criminal penalties for false statements. Company-level consequences can lead to director disqualification, civil claims for loss and indemnity.
    3. Where the project is an industrial undertaking, the Factories & Industrial Undertakings regime creates individual liability where the offence was committed with consent, connivance or attributable to neglect under s.14, Cap.59. This mirrors the pattern of personal exposure in health & safety prosecutions.
       
       
11. Cross‑border aspects:
    
    
12. 1. The Cap.201 and prosecutorial practice permit Hong Kong to investigate and prosecute bribery with extraterritorial elements under s.4 Cap.201. Hong Kong authorities will also seek cooperation from counterpart authorities in PRC and/or overseas.
    2. If the supplier is in the PRC (and/or elsewhere) and the bribe payments passed through Hong Kong (banking/payment links), Hong Kong enforcement agencies will use restraint/production powers and may work with mainland and/or overseas authorities under mutual legal assistance or other arrangements.
       
       
13. Prosecution procedures:
     ​
14. 1. If there were evidence in support of the aforesaid suspected bribery, ICAC would proceed with parallel prosecutions.
    2. The foreign supplier (giver) can be charged for offering an advantage and any Hong Kong agent/public servant/employee who accepted the advantage can be charged under Cap.201. If directors/officers approved the procurement knowing it was procured corruptly, they can be prosecuted under Cap.201 and civilly pursued for damage/loss and costs.
    3. A prosecution that shows corruption often results in more serious sentences and remedial orders (repayment, confiscation), and can influence sentencing in related safety/criminal prosecutions (for example, deliberate corruption to save cost on safety‑critical materials will aggravate culpability).
    4. The Organized and Serious Crimes regime can be used to freeze, restrain and confiscate proceeds derived from the corrupt transactions.
    5. Injured and deceased victims (as well as owners of flats and liability insurers) may bring civil claims for loss and seek to trace and recover bribe‑derived assets. The court has statutory power to order repayment of advantages under Cap.201 framework (i.e. restitution to the injured principal in private‑sector bribery cases).
    6. Also, the convicted contractors (and related officers) shall also be penalized with debarment from public tenders, regulatory penalties, and professional and licensing sanctions.
       
       
15. In the decided case of HKSAR V. CHAN CHIN PANG AND ANOTHER - [2011] HKDC 1519: 
    ​
16. 1. The case involves two defendants, i.e. a businessman named Chan Chin Pang and Lam Kong, an employee of the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK). Chan owned 40% of DMN Technology Limited (DMN) and was the de facto owner of Sino Smart Technology Limited (SSTL), which was set up by his wife. Lam, a senior technician at CUHK, was responsible for purchasing audio-visual and computer equipment for the university. Between October 2008 and October 2009, the defendants conspired to defraud CUHK by submitting inflated quotations for equipment, with Chan receiving a commission of 5-8% from the contract payments. Chan submitted a quotation for audio/video equipment to CUHK at HK$482,000, while he could procure the goods for HK$300,000. Lam facilitated the awarding of contracts to DMN and SSTL, which were awarded a total of 13 contracts worth HK$1,727,870. Chan paid Lam HK$50,000 for his assistance in securing the contract.
    2. The prosecution charged both defendants with multiple offenses, including conspiracy to defraud and offering an advantage to a public servant under Cap.201. Chan pleaded guilty to offering an advantage, while Lam pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud and other charges.
    3. The court considered the defendants' cooperation with the ICAC and their personal circumstances during sentencing. Chan was sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment, while Lam received a total of 23 months' imprisonment, with the court emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the need for deterrence.

​

Conclusion:

This incident was highly caused by negligence, misdeed and/or even criminal conducts (if proven later) of irresponsible contractors and their officers. All relevant governmental departments, including ICAC, are strongly urged to carry out serious investigation in the causes of the fire incident and the true stories behind the scene. It is necessary to re-consider and review the existing measures, so as to ensure that local contractors should use “fire-proof” materials to erect scaffoldings in all construction sites in Hong Kong. Similar tragic incident should not reoccur.

Disclaimer

This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal, tax, or regulatory advice.