Wong Kam Shu v. Ng Wai on and Others

Read the full judgment text of DCEC 21/2006 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment.

1. This is an application for compensation under Section 9 (permanent partial incapacity), Section 10 (temporary partial incapacity) and Section 10A (medical expenses) of the Employee Compensation Ordinance (Cap.282).

Cited by 1 case

Case No.DCEC 21/2006
Court
District Court
Date
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

DCEC 21/2006

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION CASE NO. 21 OF 2006

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

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION

BETWEEN

  WONG KAM SHU (黃錦樞) Applicant
  and  
  NG WAI ON (伍偉安) 1st Respondent
  KWONG LUEN FOOD LICENCE CONSULT ENGINEERING LIMITED
(廣聯飲食業顧問工程有限公司)
2nd Respondent
  TOP WORLD FOOD LICENCE CONSULT LIMITED
(創世飲食牌照顧問有限公司)
3rd Respondent

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

Coram: Deputy District Judge Bernard Mak in Court

Date of Trial: 17th March 2009

Date of Judgment: 17th March 2009

Date of Handing Down Reasons for Judgment: 29th April 2009

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

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

1.This is an application for compensation under Section 9 (permanent partial incapacity), Section 10 (temporary partial incapacity) and Section 10A (medical expenses) of the Employee Compensation Ordinance (Cap.282).

2.The Applicant claims compensation for injuries sustained in an accident on 5th March 2005 which allegedly arose in and out of the course of his employment with the 1st Respondent.  At the material time, the Applicant was aged 42.

3.On 19th July 2006, the Applicant filed a notice of appeal against the Certificate of Review of Assessment issued by the Employees’ Compensation (Ordinary Assessment) Board.

4.Initially, only the 1st and 2nd Respondents were parties to this action.  Upon the Order by Judge Lok, leave was granted to join the 3rd Respondent as a party on 24th December 2007.

5.The 1st and 3rd Respondent did not file any Answers and thus interlocutory judgment was entered against them on 29th September 2006 and 19th March 2008 respectively.  The 2nd Respondent disputes liability.  As such, the issues for determination are:

i.  Whether the 2nd Respondent is liable as a sub-contractor under section 24, Cap. 282? and

ii.  Quantum of compensation.

6.All Respondents were absent at the hearing.

Evidence

7.The Applicant gave evidence during the trial.  According to his evidence, on 5th March 2005, at about 11:30am, he was dismantling an air-duct (“the Air Duct”) on the ceiling of a restaurant on Ship Street, Wanchai (“the Restaurant”).  He was standing on an A-shaped ladder to unscrew the Air Duct at one end, while the 1st Respondent was standing on another A-shaped ladder and used his hands to support the Air Duct at the other end.   The 1st Respondent suddenly lost his balance and lost his grip, causing the Air Duct to fall and hit the ladder the Applicant was stepping on.  As a result, the Applicant fell onto the ground and suffered injuries including fracture of calcaneum of his right ankle and contusion of his left upper lip.

8.As a result of the injury, the Applicant was given 167 days of sick leave, all of which were supported by sick leave certificates.

Liability

9.It is Applicant’s understanding that the 1st Respondent is paid by the 2nd Respondent.  However, the Applicant had no knowledge of the relationship between the 3rd Respondent and the other 2 Respondents.

10.The Applicant also gave evidence that in or about May 2004, the 1st Respondent began working as a contractor for the 2nd Respondent.  Further, the Applicant asserted that two days prior to the accident, the 1st Respondent telephoned the Applicant and told him to start work at the Restaurant the following day, as the 1st Respondent had obtained a contract for decoration works from the 2nd Respondent.

11.The 2nd Respondent was absent at the hearing and thus there was no evidence to contradict the Applicant’s testimony.  I find the Applicant a credible witness and thus find that the 3rd Respondent was the principal contractor and the 2nd Respondent was the sub-contractor was the employer for the purposes of section 24, Cap. 282.  Thus I find the 2nd Respondent liable for the Applicant’s claim for employee compensation.

Quantum

12.The Applicant gave evidence that at the time of the accident, his daily wages were HK$500, and that he worked on average 23 to 24 days per month.  As such, he calculated his average monthly earnings for a period of 12 months before the accident to be HK$11,800.

13.Further, solicitor for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant’s injuries bear the closest resemblance to “ankylosis” as set out in the First Schedule of the Employees Compensation Ordinance.  As such, it was submitted that the percentage for permanent loss of earning capacity should be within the range of 15% to 25%.  It was suggested that in light of the Applicant’s injuries, a percentage of 20% should be adopted.

14.The Applicant has provided documentary evidence for 167 days of sick leave and $300 in medical expenses. 

Section 9 compensation

15.I accept that the Applicant’s average monthly income prior to the accident was $11,800.  I further accept the percentage for permanent loss of earning capacity to be 20%.  As such, the assessment is as follows:

$11,800 x 72 (s.7(1)(b)) x 20%= $169,920 

Section 10 compensation

16.The Applicant was granted 167 days of sick leave, all of which were supported by sick leave certificates.  As such, the assessment is as follows:

$11,800 x 167/30 x 4/5 = $52,549 

Section 10A compensation

17.Initially in the pleadings, a sum of $5,000 was claimed for medical expenses under this head.  However, during the hearing, solicitor for the Applicant conceded that only $300 should be awarded under this head since only $300 worth of medical expenses were supported by receipts.  Accordingly, I make an award of $300 under this head.

Summary

18.The total amount of damages awarded is as follows:

Section 9 $169,920
Section 10 $52,549
Section 10A $300
Total: $222,769 

Interest and costs

19.Interest at half judgment rate from the date of the accident (5 March 2005) to the date of assessment (17 March 2009).  Thereafter, interest at judgment rate until payment.

20.In view of my judgment against the 2nd Respondent on liability, and the judgments entered against the 1st and 3rd Respondent, I make an order nisi that the costs of this action be borne by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, to be taxed if not agreed.  The Applicant’s own costs are to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.

  (Bernard Mak)
  Deputy District Judge

Representation:

Ms Wong Siu Ping of Messrs Liu, Chan and Lam, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Applicant.

The 1st to 3rd Respondents, unrepresented, absent.

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case