Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board v. Fong Chak Kwan

Read the full judgment text of FAMV 43/2022 on BabelCite. This Court of Final Appeal judgment was delivered on 22 February 2022 before Ribeiro PJ, Fok PJ, Lam PJ.

Civil procedure – service out of jurisdiction – Order 11 rule 1(1)(f) (Gateway F) – tort committed outside Hong Kong – damage sustained within jurisdiction – interpretation of 'damage' – whether limited to direct damage or extends to indirect or consequential damage – Employees Compensation Assistance Ordinance (Cap 365) s.33(d) – claim for compensation for injury to employee engaged outside Hong Kong by employer outside Hong Kong with no place of business in Hong Kong – leave to appeal – great general or public importance – obiter dicta of UK Supreme Court – persuasive weight – Court of Final Appeal – Appeal Committee – leave granted on two questions – application dismissed on one question – appeal listed for hearing on 19 May 2022

Legal issues: Interpretation of 'damage sustained within the jurisdiction' under Gateway F · Whether Court of Appeal correctly approached obiter dicta of UK Supreme Court · Applicability and consequences of section 33(d) of Cap 365

Outcome: Leave to appeal granted in part; application for leave to appeal on Question 2 (regarding UK Supreme Court obiter dicta) dismissed; leave granted on Question 1 (interpretation of 'damage' under Gateway F) and new Question 2 (applicability of section 33(d) of Cap 365).

Cited by 2 cases · Cites 3 cases

Case No.FAMV 43/2022[2022] HKCFA 4
Court
Court of Final Appeal
Date22 Feb 2022
JudgeRibeiro PJ, Fok PJ, Lam PJ
Case Document
100%Judiciary

FAMV No. 43 of 2022

[2022] HKCFA 4

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 43 OF 2022 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM

CACV NO. 358 OF 2020)

____________________

BETWEEN    
  FONG CHAK KWAN Plaintiff (Respondent)
  and  
  ASCENTIC LIMITED 1st Defendant
  BRENTWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. 2nd Defendant
  EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ASSISTANCE FUND BOARD 3rd Defendant (Applicant)

____________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Fok PJ and Mr Justice Lam PJ

Date of Hearing and Determination: 22 February 2022

____________________

DETERMINATION

____________________

Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ:

1.The applicant (“the Board”) seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal[1] which upheld the decision of Marlene Ng J[2] that jurisdiction was properly founded by the respondent as passing through the jurisdictional “gateway” under O 11 r 1(1)(f) (referred to below as “Gateway F”), involving a claim based on a tort committed outside Hong Kong where the damage was sustained within the jurisdiction.

2.The Board applies for leave putting forward two questions said to be of the necessary great general or public importance. Additionally, prior to the hearing, a separate question was raised by the Appeal Committee for consideration.

3.The two questions proposed by the Board are as follows:

(a)  “On a proper interpretation of the phrase the damage was sustained ... within the jurisdiction’ in Gateway F, whether ‘the damage’ is limited to damage directly caused by the alleged tortious act, or whether it extends to indirect or consequential damage (e.g. the pecuniary expenditure or other loss resulting from the direct damage) sustained within the jurisdiction?” (“Question l”)

(b)  “Whether it is correct for the CA to approach the obiter dicta of the majority view of the UKSC as if it were a decision of a court of coordinate jurisdiction, such that the same should be followed ‘unless [the CA is] satisfied that it is clearly wrong’?” (Question 2”)

4.We are satisfied that Question 1 is of the requisite importance and grant leave to appeal in respect thereof.

5.We dismiss the application in relation to the abovementioned Question 2.  It arises from an unfortunately phrased paragraph in the Court of Appeal’s judgment[3] which has since been clarified and put right in the Court of Appeal’s decision refusing leave to appeal.[4]  It was obviously not suggesting that a decision of the UK Supreme Court, whether or not obiter, could be binding in Hong Kong as a matter of stare decisis but merely emphasising the persuasive weight to be accorded to a fully considered judgment of that UK Court.

6.The Board’s reference to leave on the “or otherwise” ground adds nothing to its application.

7.Prior to the hearing, the Appeal Committee drew attention to a question that had not been raised or considered below.  The parties were invited to address us on whether section 33(d) of the Employees Compensation Assistance Ordinance (Cap 365)[5] (the Ordinance governing the obligations, powers and functions of the Board) was of relevance to the proposed appeal, and if so, and if leave to appeal were to be granted in respect of any of the questions set out in Form B, whether there ought to be added thereto a further question as to the scope, effect and consequences of section 33(d) to be addressed on the proposed appeal.

8.Having heard the parties’ submissions, we are satisfied that leave to appeal should also be granted in respect of the following question to be referred to as the new Question 2:

“Is section 33(d) of the Employees Compensation Assistance Ordinance (Cap 365) applicable and if so, what are its consequences for the appeal?” (“Question 2”)

9.The appeal will be listed for hearing on 19 May 2022.

(R A V Ribeiro)
Permanent Judge
(Joseph Fok)
Permanent Judge
(M H Lam)
Permanent Judge

Mr Horace Wong SC leading Mr Clark Wang and Mr Adrian T Y Wong, instructed by Gallant, for the 3rd Defendant (Applicant)

Mr Paul Harris SC leading Mr Anson Wong Yu Yat, instructed by Kenneth Lam, Solicitors, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, and Mr Jason Kung (not assigned by the Director of Legal Aid), instructed by Kenneth Lam, Solicitors, for the Plaintiff (Respondent)



[1]  Cheung and Yuen JJA [2021] HKCA 1138.

[2]  [2020] HKCFI 679.

[3]  [2021] HKCA 1138, §36.

[4]  [2021] HKCA 1974, §5.

[5]  Section 33(d): “No claim lies under this Part in respect of ... (d) any compensation or damages for injury to an employee who has been engaged outside Hong Kong by an employer who (i) is outside Hong Kong; and (ii) has no place of business in Hong Kong (and whether or not the employer’s business is for gain).”