Limboo Jashu v. Baked Kennedy Ltd

DCEC 2679/2024

[2026] HKDC 1113

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION CASE NO. 2679 OF 2024

————————

————————

————————

JUDGMENT

————————

1.This is the assessment hearing of the claim of the Applicant Ms Limboo Jashu under the Employees Compensation Ordinance, Cap 282 (the “ECO”) arising out of an accident at work on 19 March 2024.

2.The Respondent Baked Kennedy Limited took no part in these proceedings. Interlocutory Judgment was entered against it on 2 January 2026.

3.By an Order dated 20 March 2026, Her Honour Judge Phillis Loh fixed this assessment hearing and gave directions regarding the filing of submissions.

4.Notice of this assessment hearing was given to the Respondent in April 2026. The assessment bundle together with the written submissions of the Applicant were also served on the Respondent before this hearing. An affirmation for proof of service was filed.

5.The Respondent did not attend this hearing. Nor did it file any documents in these proceedings.

6.In the circumstances, I was satisfied that the Respondent had sufficient notice of this hearing and hence decided to proceed with the assessment in its absence.

The Applicant’s Claim

7.The Applicant’s claim for compensation is set out as follows:

Under section 9	HK$27,360.00
Under section 10	HK$48,133.33
Under section 10A	HK$2,180.00
Total	HK$77,673.33

8.The only viva voce evidence came from the Applicant in support of her Application. She adopted the contents of her witness statement as her evidence in chief.

Background

9.The Applicant was born on 21 November 1971 and was 52 years old at the time of the accident.

10.The Applicant was injured on 19 March 2024 at a restaurant operated by the Respondent. Her right index finger was cut by the kitchen slicer when she was using the kitchen slicer to cut cheese. As a result, she sustained injuries to her right index finger.

11.The medical report dated 3 May 2024 shows that the Applicant’s laceration wound was sutured with 3 stitches.

12.On 11 March 2025, the Employees’ Compensation (Ordinary Assessment) Board issued Form 7, which assessed the permanent loss of earning capacity resulting from the injury of the Applicant as 2% and her period of absence from duty necessary as a result of the injury as from 19 March 2024 to 21 June 2024.

13.The Applicant confirmed acceptance of the Form 7 and there is no appeal against the Form 7 made by the Respondent.

The Applicant’s Earnings

14.The Applicant commenced work with the Respondent on 11 March 2024 and had worked for less than a month before the accident took place on 19 March 2024.

15.Section 11(1) of the ECO provides that:

“Subject to this section, for the purposes of this Ordinance the monthly earnings of an employee at the time of the accident shall be the earnings—

(a) for the month immediately preceding the date of the accident; or

(b) computed in such manner as is best calculated to give the rates per month at which the employee was being remunerated during the previous 12 months if he has been so long employed by the same employer, but, if not, then for any lesser period during which he has been employed by the same employer,

whichever calculation is more favourable to the employee.”

16.Such “lesser period” referred to in Section 11(1)(b) of the ECO encompasses the scenario of an employee who has been employed for less than one month and whose salary is calculated on a monthly basis. This limb is applicable so long as the employees’ remuneration during the pre-injury “lesser period” is such as to render it “practicable” to compute their “monthly remuneration”: Or Wing Ming v Ho Bing Chi t/a Tin Kei Decoration Engineering Co [2008] 4 HKLRD 337, §§42 & 46 per Chung J (as he then was). If the answer to this question is in the negative, the employee’s remuneration will have to be calculated in accordance with Section 11(2).

17.The Applicant had been employed by the Respondent for about 8.5 days when the accident occurred on 19 March 2024, for which period she was paid the sum of HK$4,903.23 by the Respondent as earnings. There was however no evidence available as to how the said sum was calculated.

18.The Applicant further produced an employment contract dated 19 March 2027 entered into between her and the Respondent, which sets out her basic salary as HK$19,000 per month. In the circumstances, I accept the figure of HK$19,000 as practicable for computing her monthly remuneration.

Compensation under Section 9

19.As there is no appeal against the Form 7, the percentage of loss of earning capacity and the period of absence as stated in the Form 7 are conclusive for the purpose of the assessment of compensation: Ng Ming Cheong v Mass Transit Railway Corp [1997] HKLRD 1231, 1236-1237 per Le Pichon J (as she then was).

20.The Applicant was 52 years old at the date of the accident such that the multiplier is 72 months pursuant to section 7(1)(a) of the ECO. The compensation pursuant to section 9 of the ECO is:

HK$19,000 x 2% x 72 =  HK$27,360.00

Compensation under Section 10

21.The Applicant was granted sick leave from 19 March 2024 to 21 June 2024, for a period of 95 days. The full period was endorsed in the Form 7. The compensation pursuant to section 10 of the ECO is:

HK$19,000/30 x 95 x 4/5 =  HK$48,133.33

Compensation under Section 10A

22.In the opening submissions filed on behalf of the Applicant, it is asserted that the Applicant attended the Accident and Emergency Department of a public hospital on the date of the accident and subsequently consulted a private orthopaedic surgeon four times for follow up treatment, as corroborated by the sick leave certificates. The Applicant did not retain any medical receipts. It is proposed that a broad-brush approach be taken and the amount of medical expenses be calculated as HK$2,180 (HK$180 + HK$500 x 4).

23.I however note that the witness statement of the Applicant does not contain any information on her medical expenses. It is not only that the medical receipts that are lacking, there is no mention of the HK$180 or HK$500 per visit or the total sum of HK$2,180 at all. In the circumstances where there is no evidence from the Applicant on the medical expenses, this claim under Section 10A is denied.

Advanced payment

24.The Applicant confirmed that she has received no advanced payment from the Respondent.

Conclusion

25.In summary, I assess the compensation payable to the Applicant under the ECO as the total of the Section 9 compensation in the sum of HK$27,360 and the Section 10 compensation in the sum of HK$48,133.33, totaling HK$75,493.33.

26.The Applicant is entitled to interest at half judgment rate from the date of accident (i.e. 19 March 2024) to the date of judgment and thereafter at judgment rate until the date of payment.

27.I make a costs order nisi that the Respondent do pay the Applicant’s costs of the assessment, to be taxed if not agreed.

Mr Mang Chek Yuen, of Joseph Leung & Associates, for the Applicant.

The Respondent did not appear