In FACC 4 of 2012, Paul Y entered into a contract with the owner’s representative to undertake carcass work at a building site. The work included aluminum cladding work, which was subcontracted by Paul Y’s contractor. An accident occurred where two employees of the subcontractor fell from an aluminum slab; one was injured and the other killed. In FACC 5 of 2012, Lucky Engineering was Jockey Club’s contractor for upgrading its electrical power station system at the swimming pool, supplying and installing black lights, and supplying electrical powers for grey lights at the Happy Valley Clubhouse. A workman of the subcontractor was electrocuted whilst installing the grey lights. He was not an employee of Lucky Engineering. The Appellants were convicted after trial: Paul Y on three charges, one in the capacity of a proprietor of the industrial undertaking and two in the capacity of a contractor responsible for a construction site; Lucky Engineering on two charges, one in the capacity of a proprietor of the industrial undertaking and the other in the capacity of a contractor responsible for a construction site. On appeal, their convictions were upheld. They appealed to the Court of Final Appeal, which allowed the appeals on the proprietor charges but dismissed the appeals on the contractor charges. The proprietor charges concerned the relationship between sections 6A and 13 of the Factories and Industrial Undertaking Ordinance (FIUO). Section 6A imposes a general duty on a proprietor to ensure the safety of his employees. Section 13(1) imposes criminal liability on the proprietor of every industrial undertaking where any offence under the FIUO has been committed; that proprietor will be guilty of a “like offence”. The issues were (1) whether section 13(1) when read together with section 6A(1) permit a proprietor to be convicted of a “like offence” in relation to a person who was not his employee; and (2) if so, whether any defence would be available to that proprietor. The Court noted that the proprietor charges were based on a misunderstanding of sections 6A and 13, namely that the two sections in combination imposed a duty on a proprietor to ensure safety extending beyond his employees. The Court held that, on the proper understanding of the sections, there could be more than one proprietor at an industrial undertaking, such that when there is a chain of contractors, each contractor in the chain is a proprietor of its own business and could be charged individually in respect of its own employees under section 6A. If another proprietor’s business encompassed the business of the proprietor liable under section 6A, that other proprietor would be liable under section 13. It would be a defence to that other proprietor that the predicated offence (section 6A in the present appeals) has not been committed. In Paul Y’s case, the Court accepted the prosecution’s submission that Paul Y could be charged under section 13 on the basis of another proprietor’s contravention of section 6A. However, since that was not the basis of the proprietor charge, Paul Y’s appeal on this charge was allowed. As the proprietor charge against Lucky Engineering suffered from the same defect, Lucky Engineering’s appeal on this charge was also allowed. The contractor charges concerned regulations in the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations. There was no issue that the relevant regulations were contravened. The issue was whether each Appellant was “the contractor responsible for the relevant construction site” so as to be rendered liable under such regulations. In particular, (1) whether a contractor from whom other contractors did not derive their contracts, could nevertheless be deemed the principal contractor; and (2) if one contracts with an “owner’s representative”, whether it would necessarily preclude the contractor from being the principal contractor. The Court held that the regulations cast a wide net. A contractor responsible for the relevant construction site could be responsible even for other contractors on that site who had no direct contractual relationship with him (e.g. sub-contractors of his own contractors). What amounts to a construction site is a question of fact, and there could be more than one construction site at any place where more than one type of construction work is being undertaken. Moreover, the fact that a contractor enters into a contract with an “owner’s representative” would not preclude the contractor from being the principal contractor. In Paul Y’s case, since Paul Y was the contractor responsible for the carcass work of which the aluminum cladding work formed part, the Court was satisfied that Paul Y was the principal contractor and dismissed its appeals on the contractor charges. In Lucky Engineering’s case, the Court noted the critical fact that Lucky Engineering was in charge of providing power supply for the grey lights which electrocuted the deceased. It held that on the evidence the magistrate was entitled to find that Lucky Engineering was responsible for the construction site which included the grey lights. Lucky Engineering’s appeal on the contractor charge was also dismissed.