Lai Wing Kee (the “Deceased”) was killed in an industrial accident. At the relevant time he was engaged in helping a crane driver to lift a heavy forklift truck onto the back of a lorry. The truck was suspended from the crane hook by two chains when one of them snapped. It killed the Deceased who was standing underneath. The four defendants are associated companies. The Deceased was employed by the 2nd Defendant under a written contract and subsequently an oral agreement. The 1st Defendant paid the salaries of the Deceased and described itself as the Deceased’s employer in various documents including the Employer’s Returns to the Inland Revenue. At the relevant time the crane lorry, owned by the 2nd Defendant, was lent to and used by the 3rd Defendant to collect a forklift truck. An employee of the 4th Defendant was at the premises where the truck was kept and received a message from the 3rd Defendant that the truck would be collected. He passed on the message to the Deceased, who was working at the premises, and asked him to assist an employee of the 3rd Defendant in loading the truck. The Plaintiff, as the Deceased’s administratrix, sued the Defendants for damages arising from his death. There is no dispute that the method used to lift the truck onto the lorry was unsafe. There is also no dispute that the 2nd Defendant was in breach of its duty as an employer to the Deceased, which enabled the Plaintiff’s claim to be paid in full. The 2nd Defendant, however, claimed that the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants are liable for the same damage and ought to contribute to the loss. The trial judge found all four defendants liable on the basis that at the material time, the 1st and 2nd Defendants were general employers of the Deceased and the 4th Defendant was his employer pro hac vice (temporary employer). The 3rd Defendant was also liable because it had provided the metal chains which are proven to be defective. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge’s decision. The Court of Final Appeal (the “Court”) unanimously allowed the appeals by the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants. In respect of the 1st Defendant, the Court held that it was not the Deceased’s employer. The Inland Revenue returns stating otherwise were either wrong, or done for some tax or accounting purpose, which could not have created an employment relationship between the 1st Defendant and the Deceased. In respect of the 3rd Defendant, its liability was said to rest upon the fact that the defective chains were on the lorry and that the lorry had been used by the 3rd Defendant. The Court of Appeal concluded that the chains must have been intended by the 3rd Defendant to be used for the lifting operations. However, the Court rejected this conclusion as the evidence showed that the chains were suitable for lashing objects to the lorry but not for lifting. The mere fact that the chains were on the lorry that was used by the 3rd Defendant was not a representation by the 3rd Defendant that they were suitable for lifting a heavy forklift truck. If the chains were not intended for use as lifting gear, there could not have been a breach of duty by the 3rd Defendant. In respect of the 4th Defendant, the lower courts found that its employee, by telling the Deceased to help load the truck, constituted the 4th Defendant the Deceased’s employer pro hac vice (temporary employer). However, the Court held that this doctrine has no application in the present case, and that the duty of anyone other than the actual employer of the Deceased is to take reasonable care in all the circumstances. On the facts, the Court rejected the argument that the 4th Defendant (through its employee) was negligent in not supervising the work of loading the lorry.