Lo Siu Wa v. Nuovo Design Ltd
Read the full judgment text of DCEC 297/2008 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 14 August 2009.
1. The applicant claimed against his former employer, Nuovo Design Limited, for compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance, Cap. 282 of the Laws of Hong Kong for an industrial accident which took place on 19 March 2007. As the respondent failed to file an answer to the application pursuant to the court order of her Honour Judge Yuen dated 18 April 2008, judgment against the respondent was entered on 5 September 2008.
Cited by 1 case
|
DCEC297/2008 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION CASE NO. 297 OF 2008
BETWEEN
Before: Her Honour Judge H C Wong in Court Date of Hearing: 14 August 2009 Date of Delivery of Assessment of Compensation: 14 August 2009 _____________________________________ ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION _____________________________________ 1.The applicant claimed against his former employer, Nuovo Design Limited, for compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance, Cap. 282 of the Laws of Hong Kong for an industrial accident which took place on 19 March 2007. As the respondent failed to file an answer to the application pursuant to the court order of her Honour Judge Yuen dated 18 April 2008, judgment against the respondent was entered on 5 September 2008. 2.The applicant is a carpenter. He was employed since 15 March 2007 to work for the respondent at a ground floor shop of the Panda Hotel in Tsuen Wan. According to the witness statements of a Mr Yu Chi-wai, a director of the respondent and the statement by a Mr Lee Chung-fai, the project manager of the respondent, made to the Labour Department on 20 June and 22 June 2007, the applicant, Mr Lo, was paid a daily wage by the respondent of $800 per day. 3.At the time of the accident, the applicant was cutting a piece of wooden board when he sustained a crush injury to his right hand caused by the belt of the circular saw. He suffered from multiple open wounds to his right hand over the ulna 4 digits. He was also found to have intra-articular fracture of his right index, middle and little fingers. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted into Yan Chai Hospital. After his admission, he received operations to repair his right hand. 4.Upon discharge from the hospital he was followed-up regularly at the outpatient clinic of Yan Chai Hospital. He further received physiotherapy treatments and occupational therapy treatments to strengthen his right hand and increase its mobilisation. Since October 2007, he has been treated for depression at the West Kowloon Clinic. Quantum 5.The Medical Assessment Board made an assessment of the applicant’s conditions and issued a Certificate of Assessment on 11 March 2009. It assessed the applicant to suffer from a loss of earning capacity permanently caused by the injury at 15 per cent. He was also certified to be entitled to sick leave as a result of the injury from 19 March 2007 to 31 May 2008, a total of 440 days. The Medical Assessment Board also confirmed the applicant to have suffered from multiple fractures of 1) right index and middle finger proximal interphalangeal joint and distal interphalangeal joint and arthrodesis; 2) right little finger distal interphalangeal joint and arthrodesis, and 3) psychiatric impairment. Compensation under Section 9 6.Based on Mr Lo’ s daily wage of $800, his wages working 26 days a month comes to $20,800. The calculation under Section 9 is therefore $20,800 x 96 x 15 % = $299,520. Compensation under Section 10 7.He was granted and certified for sick leave from 19 March 2007 to 31 May 2008, a total of 440 days. Under Section 10 he is entitled to sick leave and the pay for the sick leave of: $20,800 x 4/5 x 440/30 = $244,053.33. Compensation under Section 10A Medical Expenses 8.$1,915. Summary
Interests 10.Interest is payable at half judgment rate from the date of the accident to the date of judgment, thereafter at judgment rate. Costs 11.Costs to the applicant to be borne by the respondent to be taxed if not agreed. The applicant’s own costs to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.
Respondent, in person, absent | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case