Lai Muk Kan v. Nederhorst Foundation Engineering (HK) Ltd

DCEC000053/1980

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION CASE NO. 53 OF 1980

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

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

Coram: Judge de Basto, Q.C. in Court.

Date of Judgment: 5 November 1980

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. In this case the court is only concerned with the quantum of damages. Prior to the accident the deceased (who was aged 24 at the time of the accident) lived with his father, step-mother, step-brothers and step-sister. I find that prior to the accident the total family income was about $2,980 per month of which $800 was contributed by the deceased. The deceased's father (the father) estimated the family's food bills at a little over $1,000 per month. The father said that since his son's death there has been a slight reduction in food expenses and "small sundry articles". The deceased had his own room. He had no girl friend. The father said, and I accept his evidence, that if his son were to have married, he would have continued to live with him. The father testified that even with the deceased's contribution he and his wife could just make ends meet. The father said that since his son's monthly contributions stopped he has had to have recourse to his savings and to "economize".

2. The fact that the father told the Social Welfare worker that he would deposit any compensation which might be received in the bank has caused me no difficult. From experience in these matters I am aware that social workers sometimes tell people, when questioned, that courts generally do not like to authorize payment out of a large lump sum because of the risk of the person receiving such sum possibly dissipating it over a short period. So, potential beneficiaries often tend to say they will put the money in the bank. I am satisfied that the deceased's father, step-mother, two half-brothers and half-sister were all partially dependent on the deceased's contribution. There is no evidence of what part of the deceased's contribution of $800 could be attributable to expenses incurred by the deceased himself but I think the figure of $250 a month not unreasonable.

3. The deceased's mother (the mother), like his father, is illiterate - I accept her evidence that before his death her son contributed $300 to $400 per month to her living expenses (besides another $1,000 per year for her birthday and Chinese festivals including Chinese New Year). The mother has three children by her present husband who is aged 64 and who cannot work due to illness. The mother herself works as a hawker earning about $20 a day. I am satisfied the mother was partially dependent upon the deceased in the sum of $350 per month.

4. The appropriate multiplier, in my view, having regard to the age of the deceased, the fact that he had no marriage plans and that he was the father's eldest son, would be in excess of five and, therefore, the maximum of $60,000 under Section 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance becomes applicable and I award that figure to the plaintiff (to be paid into Court within 14 days) with costs on the upper scale to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.

Representation:

Mr Clough (Director of Legal Aid) for applicant.

Mr D. Stevens (Johnson, Stokes & Master) for respondent.