Wong Chi Ming Jack v. Law Ying Fai and Another
Read the full judgment text of DCEC 48/2004 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment.
1. The Applicant claims against the two Respondents for personal injuries suffered in an accident arising obhaped wooden ladder to install parts of the air-conditioning system, the ladder suddenly broke causing the Applicant to fall onto the ground. As a result of which the Applicant sustained back and sacral contusion, protrusion of L5/S1 disc and sprain injury of both knees.
Cites 1 case
|
DCEC 48/2004 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION CASE NO. 48 OF 2004 -------------------- IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BETWEEN:
-------------------- Coram : Her Honour Judge H.C. Wong in Court Dates of Hearing : 28th to 30th November 2005, 1st and 6th December 2005 Date of Handing Down Judgment : 7th April 2006 __________________ JUDGMENT __________________ 1.The Applicant claims against the two Respondents for personal injuries suffered in an accident arising obhaped wooden ladder to install parts of the air-conditioning system, the ladder suddenly broke causing the Applicant to fall onto the ground. As a result of which the Applicant sustained back and sacral contusion, protrusion of L5/S1 disc and sprain injury of both knees. 4.The Applicant was put on sick leave from 22 June 2002 to 8 November 2003. He claimed that his monthly earnings while working for the 1st Respondent were $14,300 per month. He was born in Hong Kong on 10 January 1969, educated in Hong Kong up to Form 4 standard. At the time of the accident he was aged 33. The Applicant’s Case 5.At the time of the accident, the Applicant had been working as an air-conditioning technician for over 10 years. The Applicant claimed he had been employed by the 1st Respondent as an air-conditioning technician since the end of 2001 up to 23 June 2002 working at various construction sites. At the time of the accident, the Applicant Mr. Wong Chi Ming (“Mr. Wong”), claimed that he had been working at the Tseung Kwan O Shopping Plaza Phase 3 (“the work site”) for one to two months. 6.It is Mr. Wong’s evidence that his usual hours of work were between 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily. He claimed that he would receive instructions from the 1st Respondent on a daily basis as to which part of the air-conditioning installation he would be working on. The Applicant admitted that when he first started working at the work site he did register his entry into the work site on a daily basis at the site office but after the initial period, he stopped registering his entry to the work site daily. At the time of the accident, the installation work of the Shopping Plaza on Level 2 had completed and shoppers were allowed to visit the shops at Level 2 of the Shopping Plaza. Since access to Level 1 could be gained through Level 2, Mr. Wong claimed that he entered Level 1 of the Shopping Plaza through Level 2 and he was not required to register his entry into the work site. 7.On the night of the accident on 22 June 2002, Mr. Wong said he was working together with a colleague Mr. Sin Wing Lun (“Mr. Sin”) at Level 1 of the Shopping Plaza of Metro City, Tseung Kwan O, Phase 3. As he was working on the air-conditioning installation of air grilles involving welding of a metal rack onto the ceiling, he had to stand on top of a 6 feet “A’ shaped wooden ladder. Mr. Wong said he was on top of the ladder for about 20 minutes when the wooden ladder suddenly broke and he fell onto the ground injuring his right knee and his back. After resting for a while, he felt the pain persisted and he asked the 1st Respondent Mr. Law Ying Fai (“Mr. Law”) for permission to return home early promising to resume work on the next day. Mr. Law gave him permission to go home. 8.Mr. Wong claimed that because the work at Level 1 of the Shopping Arcade had a deadline to meet, he returned to work the next morning Sunday 23 June 2002 in spite of the persistent pain. Mr. Law visited the work site on that day and Mr. Wong explained to Mr. Law about his accident the night before. 9.Because the pain on his back and knee got worse, Mr. Wong sought treatment at the clinic of Dr. Ng Chun Bor near his home. On 25 June 2002, he was referred to an orthopaedic Dr. Lam Chi Keung. He continued to be treated by Dr. Lam Chi Keung up to May 2004. 10.Because of his right knee injury, Mr. Wong suffered a further sprain injury while descending the stairs on 20 January 2003. He was treated at St. Paul’s Hospital between 20 January and 26 January 2003. 11.On 25 May 2004 he was admitted into Queen Elizabeth Hospital for arthroscopy treatment on his right knee. The orthopaedic surgeon at Queen Elizabeth Hospital extended his sick leave until 1 August 2005. 12.Mr. Wong claimed that before the accident he had always enjoyed good health and was an active sportsman. Other than a football injury on his right knee in the year 2000 for which he was treated at the North District Hospital in the New Territories and had fully recovered from, he had no other serious accident. He claimed as a result of the 22 June 2002 accident he suffered from:
13.Mr. Wong claimed that after the accident he did not report the matter to the Labour Department because he did not realize at the time the seriousness of his injuries until the MRI examination in August 2002. Furthermore, he had coverage from an insurance policy that he took out for himself from MLC Hong Kong Limited which paid for his medical treatments. Finally, in July 2003 after suffering great pain to his lower back and right knee walking and climbing stairs and after prolonged treatments, he claimed he waited until his condition improved before making a report of the accident to the Labour Department. 14.Mr. Wong claimed that the 1st Respondent paid him a daily wage of $600 at the time of the accident. However, when he lodged a claim for loss of earnings he found the market rate of the type of work he was doing for the 1st Respondent was $550, therefore Mr. Wong said he was willing to accept a claim based on a daily wage of $550. 15.The Applicant called three witnesses. The first witness was Vajipasee Pornchai（余世文）. Mr. Pornchai had known the Applicant for 4 years. He was a printing worker and at the request of Mr. Wong he agreed to work on two Sundays at the Shopping Plaza of Metro City in Tseung Kwan O Phase 3 in 2002. On the second Sunday he worked at the work site, he was told by Mr. Wong that he had fallen from the ladder the day before when the ladder broke. He claimed he was shown the broken ladder at the work site that Sunday. Mr. Pornchai also said that on the two Sundays he worked at the work site he did not sign in his attendance because no one had requested him to sign in. 16.The Applicant’s second witness Mr. Chan Kwok Hung claimed that between 1998 and 2000 he was the air-conditioning contractor at Top One Karaoke and Newway Karaoke and he had engaged Mr. Wong as a casual labourer. It is Mr. Chan’s evidence that in about May 2002 Mr. Wong had requested him to pay him the outstanding wages. In early June 2002, he happened to be in Tseung Kwan O, and he visited Mr. Wong at the Shopping Plaza of Metro City Phase 3. He found Mr. Wong working at Level 1 standing on either a platform or a ladder working on air-conditioning installations. He handed over the outstanding wages to Mr. Wong on that occasion. He also claimed that when he entered the work site, no one had asked him to sign at the entrance. 17.Mr. Wong’s third witness was Mr. Mok Ka Ming. In March 2002, through the introduction of Mr. Wong he came to work for the 1st Respondent. He was hired as a causal labourer doing odd jobs assisting skill workers of the 1st Respondent including Mr. Wong in the air-conditioning installation work. He claimed that between March and June 2002 he had worked 21 days for the 1st Respondent. During this period he had worked at various construction sites for the 1st Respondent. These included work sites at Tseung Kwan O, Minden Avenue, Tai Po, IFC Phase 2 and Wanchai. It is also Mr. Mok’s evidence that at the Metro City Shopping Plaza work site he had seen the 1st Respondent giving instructions to Mr. Wong on more than one occasion. He further said that Mr. Wong had told him the 1st Respondent was Mr. Law, their boss. It is Mr. Mok’s evidence that his daily wage was $450 and he should have been paid for the 21 days of work he did for the 1st Respondent in the sum of $9,450. It is Mr. Mok’s evidence that since June 2002, he had repeatedly called the 1st Respondent’s mobile phone demanding payment of his wages but he was not able to reach Mr. Law. The Respondents’ Case 18.Mr. Law is and was a director of a firm called European Construction Material Co. Ltd. (“European Construction”). In 2002, European Construction sub-contracted the supply and installation work of air-conditioning from Fat Cheong Construction Co. Ltd. (“Fat Cheong”) at Level 1 of the Shopping Plaza of Phase 3, Metro City, Tseung Kwan O. 19.Mr. Law claimed that he had sub-contracted the air grilles installation and welding work to the Applicant Mr. Wong. He would supply the air grilles and materials to Mr. Wong and Mr. Wong would install the air grilles at the work site. It is Mr. Law’s evidence that he had promised to give Mr. Wong after he completed the sub-contract a sum between $20,000 and $30,000. He was not sure the exact amount that he promised Mr. Wong and because of the small amount of money concerned he did not reduce the sub-contract into writing. It is further Mr. Law’s evidence that he would leave the decision as to how Mr. Wong would execute his work and the number of workers he would recruit to work entirely to Mr. Wong. 20.Mr. Law agreed that Mr. Wong commenced work in or about April 2002 at the said work site. However, a few days later, he was informed by the foreman of Fat Cheong, Mr. Cheung Siu Hung, that Mr. Wong’s work was poor. Fat Cheong decided to instruct another contractor to work on the air grilles installation while Mr. Law would continue to supply the frames and air grilles. Mr. Law claimed he had notified Mr. Wong in April that his services would no longer be required. 21.Mr. Law agreed that the Applicant Mr. Wong had taken up jobs for him at Tseung Kwan O, Wanchai, Tai Po, Minden Avenue but denied Mr. Wong had worked at the IFC contract during that time. Mr. Law further said that Mr. Wong had performed the work at Tseung Kwan O for only a few days and it was up to Mr. Wong to engage workers to assist him in the work. Mr. Law further denied that he had failed to pay Mr. Wong and his workers. He denied having received any phone calls from any of Mr. Wong’s workers. 22.The Respondents’ second witness was Mr. Leung Ping Nam. Mr. Leung was a sub-contractor of Fat Cheong in charge of installation of false ceilings at the work site in Tseung Kwan O. He admitted he took over the air-conditioning installation work from Mr. Law. In paragraph 1 of his witness statement of 18 November 2005, Mr. Leung said he had agreed to take over from the 1st Respondent to install the air-conditioning air grilles and welding construction work. However, in his evidence in Court, he denied that he had agreed to do any welding work. He claimed that the welding work of frames for the attachment of air grilles was done by another sub-contractor named Hop Yik. 23.It is Mr. Leung’s evidence that between 8 June and 25 June 2002, he had deployed a total of 80 man-days on the contract of installing air-conditioning air grilles alone. During his cross-examination, he produced as exhibit A-4, Mr. Leung’s own record of the names of each worker working at the work site between 8 June and 25 June 2002 to install the air grilles. Produced as exhibit R-2, was the debit note from Fat Cheong to European Construction (Mr. Law’s company) showing a debit by Mr. Leung the sum of $31,520 as the value of the work he did on the 1st Respondent’s behalf. The debit note set out the part of the work done by Hop Yik valued at $82,900 and the invoiced sum from First World at $28,289.10. The total amount European Construction was debited under exhibit R-2 was $142,709.10. Under cross-examination, Mr. Leung admitted that he had compiled exhibit A-4 from information obtained from one of his workers at the work site because he did not attend the work site on a daily basis. He had to rely on one of his workmen to report back to him the number of workers turning up on that particular day to work. Although Mr. Leung claimed that each and everyone of his workers had to sign in at the main contractor’s site office, he would keep his own record of his workers employed at the work site and send his own record of attendance to the main contractor daily. He further claimed that should the foreman at the work site discovered anyone working at the site had failed to sign in on the main contractor’s master attendance record, the particular worker would be requested to sign on the record immediately. In paragraph 3 of Mr. Leung’s witness statement of 8 November 2005, he claimed he had seen the master attendance record taken at the work site and all the workers that he hired had signed in on the master attendance record during the relevant period. 24.Under cross-examination, Mr. Leung admitted that after checking the master attendance record and exhibit A-4, the names of some of the workers appearing on exhibit A-4 did not appear on the master attendance record. On exhibit A-4, highlighted in blue are the workers whose names did not appear in the master attendance record on the relevant days. Mr. Leung cannot explain the discrepancies. Liability Findings Was the Applicant an employee or sub-contractor of the 1st Respondent? 25.According to Mr. Law’s evidence, the sub-contract between the Applicant and himself was for such a small sum that he did not put the agreement in writing. Not only was he unable to produce any written sub-contract between him and the Applicant, he failed to produce any documentary evidence of quotations or payments to the Applicant or records of accounts that he settled with the Applicant for the alleged sub-contracts he awarded to the Applicant for the jobs at Tseung Kwan O, Wanchai, Minden Avenue or Tai Po. He was further not able to recall the exact quotation from Mr. Wong on the Tseung Kwan O sub-contract. He claimed it was between $20,000 and $30,000. He agreed that it was usual for him not to pay Mr. Wong until the whole sub-contract job had completed. He claimed he had relied purely on his memory of the different jobs he owed money to Mr. Wong and the exact amount he ought to pay. He admitted there was no agreement as to retention money being withheld by him on the sub-contract works to Mr. Wong. Although Mr. Law admitted he had some records of the work done by Mr. Wong under the sub-contracts, they no longer existed because of the lapse of time. 26.I found Mr. Law’s evidence on this particular aspect of sub-contracting extremely dubious. Mr. Law admitted that under his sub-contract with Fat Cheong there was a 10% retention money withheld. However, in his contract with the Applicant, he failed to take the same precaution. Furthermore, it is extremely unusual for a sub-contractor not to have submitted a quotation of the work to be performed in the construction trade. It is particularly so if Mr. Law claimed that he had no idea the number of workers engaged on the job by Mr. Wong and that he would not keep any record of the workers who were working for Mr. Wong. Like Mr. Leung, all sub-contactors were required to submit a list of names of the workers at the work site to the main contractor daily. No matter whether Mr. Wong was a sub-contractor or employee of Mr. Law, Mr. Law should still have kept a record of workers working at the site under Mr. Wong so that they would be covered by Fat Cheong’s employees’ compensation insurance. Yet Mr. Law claimed he kept no such records. 27.It is difficult to comprehend that Mr. Law would dispose of these records when it was clear to him Mr. Wong had injuries which he claimed were sustained while he was working at the Tseung Kwan O site as an employee of the 1st Respondent. It would be most unwise for Mr. Law to destroy those records if he claimed Mr. Wong was his sub-contractor not his employee. 28.Mr. Law claimed that Fat Cheong was not happy with the work of Mr. Wong, so much so that he cancelled his sub-contract within a few days of Mr. Wong commencing work in April. He claimed further that the Applicant only did a few days work on the air-condition installation contract. At one stage of his cross-examination, Mr. Law admitted that the price of the sub-contract to the Applicant was under $10,000. If that was true, why did the work supposedly to be completed by Mr. Wong be performed by Mr. Leung, Hop Yik and First World amount to $142,709.10? If Mr. Law’s evidence is to be believed, the few days Mr. Wong had spent at the site would have involved only a small part of the frame-welding work before any air-conditioning air grilles could be installed. If the work, according to Mr. Law’s evidence, would have taken only one week to complete why did it cost $82,900 for Hop Yik just to do the welding work? While the part completed by Mr. Leung’s workers installing the air grilles took 80 man-days at a cost of $31,520. Mr. Wong’s sub-contract for both the welding and air grilles installation work according to Mr. Law, was valued at $10,000 or in any event, not more than $20,000 or $30,000. It is inconceivable for Mr. Law to accept a debit of $142,709.10 for the installation work alone on a contract to supply and install galvanize hanger with vertical ceiling support and aluminium linear bar diffuser (air grilles) worth $135,268. It meant Mr. Law was supplying the hanger and air grilles free of charge. Questionable Evidence of Mr. Law and Mr. Leung 29.I found the evidence of Mr. Law and Mr. Leung not capable of believe. They were far from full and frank in their evidence in Court. If Mr. Law did engage Mr. Wong as his sub-contractor to perform a number of jobs not only in Tseung Kwan O, but also at Tai Po, Wanchai, Minden Avenue etc., why was Mr. Law not able to produce any written records of these sub-contracts such as invoices or receipts of these sub-contracting works to Mr. Wong. His business accounts should also reveal payments to sub-contractors. But none was exhibited. 30.Mr. Law claimed that Mr. Wong was told to vacate the site and stop working on this project after only a few days in April. Yet Mr. Leung in his evidence in chief admitted having seen the Applicant at the site in May 2002 working on the air-conditioning frames. 31.Mr. Leung admitted that he was doing the false ceiling work for Fat Cheong at the said work site in April and May 2002. He failed to produce any evidence of the false ceiling work under his sub-contract with Fat Cheong at the relevant time at the Tseung Kwan O site. He admitted that the false ceiling contract was a much larger contract, but he was not able to give even an approximate figure of how large that contract was or produce any documentary evidence in support. On the other hand, he was able to produce a detail record of the number of workers he deployed on this small project of installation of air-conditioning air grilles. 32.Mr. Yau, Counsel for Mr. Wong, dismissed the debit note and the invoices produced by Mr. Law as unreliable evidence. Clearly, the amount under the debit note in exhibit R-4 for the installation work alone was a larger figure than the invoice for the supply and installation from European Construction Material Co. Ltd. Yet Mr. Law admitted he was fully paid under the invoice exhibit R-3 for the full sum of $135,268 on 24 September 2002. On the same day, the debit note of $142,709.10 was also endorsed with a paid chop. Mr. Law claimed the debit would be covered by future payments for future work done for Fat Cheong. He failed to explain on what basis would immediate deductions be made for work to be completed in future. 33.The evidence of Mr. Law and Mr. Leung indicated that both of them were and are long term sub-contractors of Fat Cheong. They had an on-going contractor and sub-contractor relationship. For that reason, they may be prepared to sacrifice a smaller contract sum for future or existing bigger sub-contracts from Fat Cheong. Although the larger contracts were not disclosed at the hearing, both Mr. Leung and Mr. Law admitted they have other much bigger sub-contract work from Fat Cheong. These clearly were more important works and would give them larger profits than the small sub-contract Mr. Wong was working on. Furthermore, because Mr. Leung admitted to have a ceiling work contract from Fat Cheong at the said site, exhibit A-4 could have involved ceiling works as well as the installation of air grilles, after all, the information was hearsay and Mr. Leung was not present at the work site on a daily basis. The costs of the man-hours he charged was certainly much larger than what Mr. Law admitted he would pay Mr. Wong. Furthermore, the ceiling frames welding labour cost under Hop Yik’s invoice was completely disproportionate to the supply contract (see invoice R-3) that Mr. Law exhibited. It does not make sense that the installation work from Hop Yik and Mr. Leung together should exceed the costs of supply of the air grilles and galvanize frames with the installation included by Mr. Law. It is not reasonable that Hop Yik should charge for the installation of frames at a cost of $82,900 just to rectify a few days’ work by Mr. Wong in April. Hop Yik’s charges alone were about 2/3 of the supply contract with the installation included from Mr. Law of $135,268. For some unknown reason, Mr. Law was paid in full on his invoice (Exh. R-3) when there was clearly an outstanding debit of over $142,000 against him. Mr. Leung’s witness statement further claimed he had taken over both the installation and welding jobs, he changed his evidence in Court. For the aforesaid reasons, I find the evidence of both Mr. Law and Mr. Leung unacceptable, inconsistent and not capable of believe. 34.On a balance of probabilities, I find Mr. Wong’s evidence to be more reliable. Mr. Wong had kept quite a full record of the expenditures and disbursements incurred on behalf of the 1st Respondent. It is obvious that he was employed by Mr. Law who relied on Mr. Wong to be a foreman in charge of this job. Mr. Wong was also in charge of keeping a record of the expenditures and employees engaged to work on Mr. Law’s sub-contract from Fat Cheong. I find, on a balance of probabilities, Mr. Wong was paid a daily wage for the work he did on Mr. Law’s sub-contract to install air grilles and frames. In turn, under Mr. Law’s instruction, other employees were procured by Mr. Wong on Mr. Law’s behalf and they would also be paid a daily wage by Mr. Law. Clearly, Mr. Wong had been so engaged by Mr. Law to work in this manner on a number of different projects working continuously at a daily wage plus over time. The fact that there was such a relationship did not make Mr. Wong a sub-contractor of Mr. Law. The record of daily work for Mr. Law carefully kept by Mr. Wong is evidence that Mr. Wong had reported to Mr. Law and taken instructions from him daily as his employee. As to the receipts for the purchases of tools and equipment during this period between April to June 2002 produced by Mr. Wong, they showed that he had purchased most of them for the work site at Tseung Kwan O because the majority of the receipts were from hardware stores in Tseung Kwan O area. If he had not been working in Tsueng Kwan O he would not have purchased these minor metal parts in that area. The evidence of Mr. Law and Mr. Leung were unsatisfactory, they seemed to have a great deal to hide and their evidence was far from full and frank. As to the documentary evidence from Mr. Law or rather the absence of such evidence, he simply said that he no longer kept any of these records. It is most unusual for a party undergoing litigation with a former sub-contractor to throw away records of the sub-contract between them and not to keep his own business records including those relating to a series of sub-contracts with Mr. Wong. 35.For the aforesaid reasons, I reject the evidence of Mr. Law and Mr. Leung. I accept the evidence of Mr. Wong and his witnesses. I am satisfied that Mr. Wong was working for Mr. Law as his employee on the day of the accident. I find the Respondents liable to Mr. Wong for the damages he suffered due to the accident. Quantum 36.Mr. Wong applies for the following relief in his application:-
37.The nature of Mr. Wong’s injuries are as follows:-
38.The Applicant was put on sick leave from 22 June 2002 to 8 November 2003. His monthly earnings while employed by the 1st Respondent were $14,300 per month at a daily wage of $550. 39.According to the medical report adduced by the Applicant’s Dr. Richard K.M. Poon and the medical report adduced by the Respondent’s orthopaedic Dr. Chun Siu Yeung, the injuries sustained as a result of the 22 June 2002 accident were confirmed to be soft tissue injury to the lower back and sacrum, and soft tissue to the right knee. There was a surveillance video taken of Mr. Wong and it is confirmed by Dr. Poon in his report that:
40.It is also not disputed that Mr. Wong had a previous right knee injury in 2000 and he was operated on at the time. He claimed he had fully recovered from it. The second episode of right knee injury or trauma was the 22 June 2002 accident. The third episode was on 20 January 2003 while he was descending the stairs. It is Dr. Poon’s opinion that the third accident aggravated the condition of Mr. Wong’s right knee and that in both instances his condition had improved with conservative treatment. In Dr. Poon’s opinion, the lateral meniscus on the right knee of Mr. Wong may have been progressively damaged at each new episode of trauma, culminating in the bucket handle tear with locking of the knee at the last episode of trauma on 18 May 2004. Due to the last episode of trauma, Mr. Wong had an operation to reconstruct the ligament and repair the bucket handle tear of the lateral meniscus. 41.Dr. Chun found the minor thickening of the L5/S1 facet joint was the result of degeneration after examining the x-ray taken 2 days after the accident on 22 June 2002. He found the degenerative changes and congenital condition were not related to the fall. Dr. Poon on the other hand found the problem of Mr. Wong’s lower back to be in the lower back sacral area and deferred symptoms down the right lower limb to be relatively mild and not present most of the time. He also found the lower back to be at or near maximum medical improvement and no active treatment to be necessary except for regular back and postero exercise with particular attention to the care of the lower back and work at leisure. Both doctors found Mr. Wong to be unlikely to return to his pre-accident job as an air-conditioning technician because of the requirement to carry heavy load. Both found because of his back and knee injuries, Mr. Wong would be suitable for employment such as carpark or petrol station attendant, cashier, shop salesman or caretaker. Both doctors reported that the reasonable sick leave for the falling injury on 22 June 2002 should not be more than a year. Dr. Chun in his second medial report assessed Mr. Wong to have 3% impairment of the whole person for the lower back and sacral contusion sustained in June 2002. The loss of earning capacity for Employees’ Compensation purpose to be 3%. It seemed that Dr. Chun had changed his mind in his second report on Mr. Wong’s recovery date, he gave the date of 20 January 2003 i.e. approximately 7 months after the injury, when Mr. Wong’s lower back condition to have become static. Dr. Poon, in his report, gave approximately 6 months and not more than one year of sick leave. Assessment 42.In my assessment I find the Applicant to have suffered a greater loss of earning capacity than assessed by Dr. Chun. Both doctors agreed that he would not be able to return to his former employment as an air-conditioning technician because of the requirement of carrying heavy load. Because of his continuous complaint of back pain and the fact he was seen on the video tape limping on 3 different locations of surveillance, this showed his back pain was genuine. No medical assessment board assessment was produced or exhibited. After careful consideration of the medical reports, I allow 15% loss of earning capacity under Section 9 of the Ordinance. Therefore the compensation under Section 9 is assessed as follows:- $550 x 26 x 96 x 15% = $205,920 Compensation under Section 10 43.I disagree with Mr. Yau, Counsel for Mr. Wong, that he required 3 years to recover in spite of Dr. Lam’s periodical sick leave certificates. I find that Mr. Wong would have recovered from the injuries and his condition should have reached its maximum improvement within a period of 1 year of the accident had it not been for the third episode of trauma to his right knee. He would have been fit to return to less heavy work within 12 months from 22 June 2002. Therefore the appropriate award is as follows:- $14,300 x 12 x 80% = $137,280 44.Mr. Wong did not claim any medical expenses incurred so there is no award under this head. 45.Since there was no evidence adduced of any assessment by the medical assessment board or review of assessment under section 18 of the Ordinance, I make no findings under this item. Conclusion
Interests 47.Interests on the award at half judgment rate from date of application until the date of judgment thereafter at full judgment rate. Costs 48.Costs nisi - Costs of the application and the hearing be to the Applicant in any event to be taxed if not agreed with certificate for Counsel. The Plaintiff’s own costs to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.
Parties: Mr. Yau Kai Cheong, Albert instructed by Messrs. Ambrose Ng & Co. assigned by Director of Legal Aid for the Applicant. Mr. Ashok Sakhrani instructed by Messrs. Cheng, Yeung & Co. for the 1st and 2nd Respondents. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under DCEC 48/2004