Ng Lai Fan, Fanny v. The Hong Kong Golf Club

HCPI 511/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES CASE NO. 511 OF 2005

____________________

____________________

Coram:  Mr. Registrar C. Chan in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 15 March 2006

Date of Handing Down:  2 August 2006

____________________

DECISION

____________________

The Plaintiff by a summons dated 8 March 2006 applies for an order that:

“1. The Defendant do produce the complete document mentioned in paragraph 8 of the witness statement of Tang Sun Fat dated 12th December 2005, namely, “The Hong Kong Golf Club Fanling F & B Training Manual” for the inspection of the Plaintiff within 3 days from the date of the order herein;

2. The Plaintiff and her legal advisers be at liberty at all reasonable times to enter upon the Defendant's premises at Lot No. 1 Fan Kam Road, Sheung Shui, New Territories for inspection and to take photographs of the same;

3. The Defendant do provide the Plaintiff with a sample of the linen bag used for storage and/or transportation of the used table cloths;”

The Defendant opposed the application for various reasons.

2.This is a personal injury case where the Defendant was employed by the Plaintiff as a waitress in the Defendant's premises.  The incident occurred as set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Statement of Claim:

“4. In the afternoon on 4^th June 2002, in the course of her employment with the Defendant, a captain instructed the Plaintiff and her colleague named Flora to go to kitchen and take ten odds linen bags which contained soiled table-cloths (‘linen bags') to laundry room of the Clubhouse for washing and cleaning.

a) The Plaintiff and Flora went to the kitchen which was situated at the second floor of the Clubhouse and collected those linen bags.

b) There was a staircase in the passageway next to the kitchen and the staircase was used by staffs of the Clubhouse only.

c) The Plaintiff carried the lien bags one by one to the staircase which lead to the ground floor of the laundry room of the Clubhouse.

d) The staircase was covered by tile and was slippery.

e) Each linen bag which contained soiled table-cloths was weighted about 70 to 80 lbs.

f) The Plaintiff then held a linen bag of soiled table-cloths in her chest by both hands.  When the Plaintiff was holding the linen bag and was descending a flight of stairs, she stepped one of the stairs of which the tile was damaged.  As a result, she was caused to fell down some 5 steps on the staircase and landed on her buttock.

5. As a result, she suffered injury in her low back region and left leg and was sent to North District Hospital for treatment.”

3.I do not find much information in the Defendant's Defence except the simple denial and defence we often encounter in cases involving injuries in the course of employment.

Production of Training Manual

4.The reasons given by the Defendant for refusal for production are:

(a) the inspection should be limited to relevant extract from the Training Manual, not the inspection of the whole Training Manual

and (b) in order to save costs.

5.I agree with the Plaintiff's submissions that the whole Training Manual is relevant.  Apart from the points given by Mr. Wallace Cheung, Counsel for the Plaintiff which I totally agree, I wish to say that the Plaintiff is not fishing for evidence.  He is entitled to consider how the training has been conducted within the context of the Training Manual.

6.Since the Defendant itself has introduced the Training Manual as evidence, I do not find any good reason why the Plaintiff should be precluded from examining the whole context of the book.

Inspection of the Defendant's premises

7.The only objection by the Defendant is that the term of relief is too wide and vague.  Its effect should be restricted.  I agree with the submission.  I trust that the parties can easily come to terms as to time and place of inspection of the Defendant's premises.  I find the objection contains no substance at all in denying the Plaintiff's right of access.

Production of Sample Linen Bag

8.I find the sample linen bag is useful as a matter of evidence in deciding the case.  I allow the order.

Conclusion

9.I make the following order:

(a) order in term of paragraph 1 of the summons except that “3 days” is changed to “14 days”.

(b) order in term of paragraph 2 of the summons with the following amendment:

(i) the following part is deleted “at all reasonable times to enter upon the Defendant's premises”;

(ii) it is substituted by the following phrase:

“at such reasonable time to enter upon such parts of the Defendant's premises as may be agreed by the parties within 14 days of the date of the order and failing which to be decided by the Registrar upon request”;

and (c)    order in term of paragraph 3 of the summons except that the time for production is within 14 days of the date of the order.

10.As to costs of this application (including the costs reserved), I make an order nisi under Order 42 rule 5B(6):

(a) That the costs be to the Plaintiff, if not agreed, to be assessed by me with certificate for counsel together with the following directions:

(i) That the Defendant shall within 14 days after this order becoming absolute file and serve a list of objections to the Statement of Costs of Messrs. Choi & Liu;

and (ii) That a date be fixed for hearing of the assessment before me with an estimated length of ½ an hour.

(b) That this order shall become absolute 14 days after the date of this Judgment unless a written application has been made to vary this order within the said 14 days.

Mr. T.C. Liu of Messrs. Choi & Liu for Plaintiff.

Mr. A. Fung of Messrs. Christine M. Koo & Ip for Defendant.