Limbu Laxmi Prasad v. Bachy Soletanche Group Ltd and Another

DCEC 275/2020

[2026] HKDC 932

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION CASE NO 275 OF 2020

--------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

REASONS FOR DECISION

----------------------------------------

1.At the hearing held on 18 May 2026, I made an order to dismiss the Applicant’s action herein upon the Respondents’ application. I now hand down the reasons for my decision.

Background

2.The Applicant Mr Limbu Laxmi Prasad (“A”) claims in this action against his employer as the 1^st Respondent and the principal contractor as the 2^nd Respondent (“R1” and “R2” respectively, and collectively “Rs”) for employees’ compensation (“EC”) under the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance (Cap 282) (“ECO”) in respect of an injury at work accident that he met on 12 September 2018 (“1^st Accident”).

3.By a related personal injury action DCPI 2190/2021 (“PI Action”), A as the Plaintiff sues R1 and R2 as the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants (collectively “Ds”) respectively for common law damages in respect of the same/1^st Accident.

4.At the commencement of this EC action and the PI Action, A was legally represented in both actions by Messrs WT Law Offices. Later on he filed Notices to Act in Person on 17 March 2023 and 21 November 2023 respectively in the PI Action and this action. He was not legally represented ever since and acted in person in both actions.

5.By an Order of HHJ Levy dated 2 January 2024, this EC action was stayed pending the conclusion of the related PI Action.

6.Upon Ds conceding liability in the PI Action, assessment of damages was heard before DDJ Lawrence KF Ng on 27 and 28 January 2026. The Judgment on assessment of damages was handed down on 23 February 2026 (“Judgment”), awarding total damages of $69,827 (plus interest). (Judgment §§71-72)

7.Upon conclusion of the PI Action and pursuant to the Judgment, Rs made an application to dismiss this EC action.

The Respondents’ Application

8.This is Rs’ application for dismissal of A’s EC action herein with no order as to costs upon the Judgment given in the PI Action, for reasons that any EC payable herein would be much lower than the PI damages adjudged in the Judgment.

9.Rs should have issued a proper application by way of summons supported by affidavit. I nevertheless decided to deal with at the hearing their application by letter which has set out all the relevant facts and submissions.

10.Rs submit that upon the Judgment awarding damages in the total sum of $69,827 (plus interest), A would not be able to obtain any nett compensation in this EC action, hence it should not be allowed to proceed.

11.Upon Rs’ application for dismissal, A attended the hearing in person before this Court on 18 May 2026. He opposed Rs’ application. The reasons, as he repeatedly stated in court, are that he has to proceed with the EC action herein since he had been advised previously by his former solicitors that he should get further compensation. He was also adamant that his lawyers still owe him money so they should help him proceed the action.

12.These are in my view matters between A and his former solicitors, but not relevant to my consideration of Rs’ application.

13.During the hearing, I assessed A’s claim herein for EC in light of the Judgment and on the evidence before the court. I agreed with Rs that the minor EC claim does fall way below the PI damages adjudged. I explained my assessment to A.

14.At the end of the hearing, I made an order dismissing A’s EC action herein with no order as to costs.

Assessment of the EC Claim

15.In considering Rs’ application, I have considered the evidence and assessed A’s claim for EC herein in light of the Judgment.

16.The background of A’s claims is set out in §§5-14 of the Judgment. The following facts and findings are pertinent:

(1)  A was a construction worker aged 47 at the time of the 1^st Accident on 12 September 2018 in which he sustained a mild back injury;

(2)  He returned to work on 13 September 2018, and later sought treatment on the following day on 14 September 2018. He was granted sick leave during the period 14 to 24 September 2018. During the sick leave, A had returned to work on 21, 22 and 24 September 2018;

(3)  In the Judgment, the DDJ discounted these 3 days of work and made a specific finding that A was granted only 8 days of sick leave as a result of the 1^st Accident. (Judgment §§59-62) A had continued to work for R1 after that without taking any further sick leave;

(4)  A met another accident 9 months later on 17 June 2019 (“2^nd Accident”) in which he sustained serious back injuries;

(5)  He attended Medical Board assessment on 11 June 2020. In respect of the 2^nd Accident, sick leaves granted for almost a year from 21 June 2019 to 11 June 2020 were endorsed, and the loss of earning capacity (“LEC”) was assessed at 11% as set out in the Certificate of Assessment/Form 7 issued on 24 June 2020;

(6)  In another Form 7 of the same date, sick leaves granted during 14-24 September 2018 (in respect of the 1^st Accident) were endorsed, with LEC being assessed at N/A;

(7)  In respect of the 2^nd Accident, A’s claims in 2 other actions for EC (in DCEC 2009/2019) and common law damages (in DCPI 963/2022) were settled in the respective sums of $520,000 and $200,000; (Judgment §§12-13)

(8)  A’s monthly earnings of $34,000 at the time of the Accident were not disputed; (Judgment §§8 & 58)

(9)  He had incurred and paid $360 for medical expenses as a result of the 1^st Accident; (Judgment §69) and

(10)  Total damages assessed in respect of the 1^st Accident came to $69,827 plus interest. (Judgment §§71&72)

17.By the doctrine of issue estoppel, the findings made in the Judgment in the PI Action, on identical questions and issues between the same parties arising out of the same 1^st Accident, are binding on this EC action. See the Decision of Master M Ng (as Her Ladyship then was) in Mohammad Amjad v John M Pickavant & Co, HCPI 100/2009 (7 May 2012) §§66-84.

18.Upon the above findings and evidence, this Court has no difficulty assessing A’s claim for EC in this action under the ECO as follows:

Section 9:	LEC N/A – nil compensation
Section 10:	$34,000 x 8/30 x 4/5 = $7,253
Section 10A:	$360
Total:	$7,253 + $360 = $7,613 (plus interest)

19.Even assuming no deduction despite A’s delay in prosecuting this EC action, interest will not exceed $2,436 ($7,613 x 4% x 8 years).

20.The total claim for EC herein will therefore not exceed $10,049 (inclusive of interest) and will be totally absorbed by the PI damages.

21.The above assessment clearly demonstrates that A will not be able to obtain any nett compensation in this EC action beyond the PI damages adjudged in the Judgment.

22.It is not appropriate in my view to allow A to proceed the EC action herein. It will not achieve anything but waste further time and costs.

23.Should A be allowed to proceed this action further, no doubt he would be faced with serious costs consequences ultimately. I consider that the present costs provision (of no order as to costs) proposed by Rs is more than reasonable and beneficial to A.

Order

24.I therefore made the order that A’s EC action herein be dismissed with no order as to costs.

25.I thank Mr Yeung of Rs’ solicitors for his assistance.

The Applicant appeared in person

Mr Ivan Yeung of Winnie Leung & Co, for the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents