Hussain Tanweer v. Focus Roller Shutter Ltd [in Liquidation]

DCEC 1145/2005

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION CASE NO. 1145 OF 2005

____________

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BETWEEN:-

____________

Coram: Deputy District Judge W.C. Li in Court

Date of Trial: 11^th December 2006

Date of Handing Down Judgment: 12^th December 2006

_________________

JUDGMENT

_________________

1.The Applicant had obtained judgment against the Respondent on liability. The trial is on assessment on quantum under Sections 9, 10 and 10A of the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance, Cap. 282  (“the Ordinance”).

2.The Respondent was an incorporated company which was under winding up and leave to proceed against the Respondent had been granted by a Judge of the court of First Instance in the High court.

3.The Applicant was employed by the Respondent as a welder. There was a written contract of employment. His monthly salary was $13,500 and he worked 26 days in a month. In an accident that arose out of and in the course of the Applicant’s employment, the Applicant injured his back and his left knee.

4.The Applicant was 27 years old at the time of the accident.

5.The Employees’ Compensation Board assessed the Applicant’s disability at 0.5%. An appeal was lodged by the Applicant and Dr. James Kong, the Applicant’s orthopaedist, examined the Applicant and assessed his disability at 4%. Dr. Kong’s report was a re-assessment about half a year after the Applicant suffered the injuries from the accident. Dr. Kong opined that the Applicant was likely to have reached the state of maximal medical improvement and was suitable then for assessment of permanent disability. There were permanent disability with left knee pain and stiffness, and also back pain and stiffness. Impairment of lumbar spine was assessed at 3% and impairment of left knee was assessed at 1%.

6.Sick leave from 29 January 2005 to 13 May 2005 and from 10 June 205 to 5 September 2005 were claimed by the Applicant. Medical certificates were submitted to this court in support of the claim under this head. That is a total of 193 days of sick leave.

7.Medical expenses for treatment and follow ups were supported by receipts submitted by the Applicant. The total amount claimed is $2,620.

8.Under Section 9, I prefer the assessment and the reasons for the assessment made by Dr. James Kong that the Applicant had a 4% disability, and the compensation under Sec. 9 would therefore be $13,500 X 96 months X 4% = $51,840.00.

9.Under Section 10, I would allow the Applicant’s claim of 193 days of sick leave in full. The assessment would therefore be $13,500/30  X  193 days  X 4/5  =  $69,480.

10.I also allowed the Applicant’s claim under Sec. 10A  for medical expenses in full  as shown in the receipts in the amount of $2,620.

11.The total amount assessed under Sec. 9, 10 & 10A of the Ordinance would therefore add up to  $123,940.00. Judgment is therefore entered in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent for the amount of $123,940.00. I also order interest at half judgment rate to be paid by the Respondent  to the Applicant on the judgment sum from the date of the accident, i.e. 29 January 2005,  to the date of the handing down of this judgment, and also interest at judgment rate from the date of handing down to the date of full payment of the judgment sum.

12.As cost follows the event, I order that the Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs, to be taxed if not agreed, with Certificate for Counsel.

Representation:

Miss Vickie Ling instructed by Messrs. Huen & Partners for the Applicant

The Respondent, not legally represented, absent from the trial