Gill Ajmer Singh v. Wah Hing Scaffolding Engineering Ltd and Another
Read the full judgment text of DCEC 348/2010 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 2 October 2013.
1. This is an employees’ compensation claim under sections 9, 10 and 10A of the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance (Cap 282) (the “Ordinance”).
Cited by 1 case · Cites 4 cases
|
DCEC 348/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION CASE NO 348 OF 2010 ---------------------------
---------------------------
---------------------------
---------------------------- JUDGMENT ---------------------------- Introduction 1.This is an employees’ compensation claim under sections 9, 10 and 10A of the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance (Cap 282) (the “Ordinance”). 2.The applicant was employed by the 1st respondent as a general worker to work at a construction site at the University of Hong Kong (the “Site”). The 2nd respondent was the main contractor of the works at the Site. 3.The applicant’s case was that on 20 August 2008 when he was working for the 1st respondent at the Site, he was hit by an unknown object and sustained injury, ie acute retinal detachment, to his left eye (the “Injury”). The Injury was arising out of and in the course of his employment with the 1st respondent. 4.The respondents disputed that the applicant had encountered any accident on 20 August 2008 and that the Injury was caused by the alleged accident or arising out of his employment with the 1st respondent. 5.The applicant filed the Application herein on 7 April 2010 and amended the same on 16 April 2013. 6.The respondents filed their Answer on 29 April 2010 and amended the same on 3 May 2013. 7.On 18 April 2011, the court upon the parties’ consent, ordered that the medical evidence was to be limited to one ophthalmologic expert for each party, namely Dr Alexis Yu for the applicant and Dr Paul Cheung for the respondents (jointly the “Experts”). Their joint report was to be adduced without oral evidence. 8.On 7 June 2012, the court further ordered that the reports of government hospitals as to the treatment and care of the applicant were to be adduced as agreed evidence without calling the makers thereof. 9.There were no disputes that the applicant was sent to the Queen Mary Hospital (“QMH”) in the afternoon of 20 August 2008 during the applicant’s normal working hours at about 4:30 p.m. and was diagnosed with the Injury. There were also no disputes that the applicant was under the 1st respondent’s employment on 20 August 2008. However, there were disputes as to the earnings of the applicant at the time of the alleged accident and when the applicant started his employment with the 1st respondent. Of course, the cause of the Injury was also under dispute. 10.The Employees’ Compensation (Ordinary Assessment) Board (the “Board”) issued its certificate of assessment (“Form 7”) on 21 January 2011 assessed the applicant’s permanent loss of earning capacity at 40% and assessed his period of absence from duty necessitated by the Injury at 180.50 days. Both the applicant and the respondents lodged appeal against the assessment by way of notices of appeal dated 15 February 2011 and 28 January 2011 respectively. The case and evidence of the applicant 11.In the Applicant, the applicant pleaded at paragraph 3(3)(ii) that:-
12.In the Amended Application filed on 16 April 2013, the applicant amended paragraph 3(3)(ii) and pleaded as follows:-
13.The applicant had testified at the trial and called Mr Rupinder Paul Singh (“RPS”) to testify as his witness. 14.The applicant had made a witness statement dated 24 August 2010 and a supplemental witness statement dated 26 April 2013. He adopted both of his aforesaid witness statements as his evidence-in-chief at the trial. 15.The applicant stated in his witness statement and supplemental witness statement that he was born on 7 December 1976 in India and came to Hong Kong in 2004. He was introduced by the Labour Department to work for the 1st respondent since 2007 at the daily wages of $500.00 with lunch provided. He stated that he worked 26 days per month on average. The 1st respondent would pay him cash or deposit his wages into his bank account. The applicant said that he had not signed any receipt for his wages and denied that the wages receipts produced by the 1st respondent were signed by him. 16.He described the happening of the Injury in his witness statement as follows:-
17.In his supplemental witness statement, the applicant described the happening of the Injury as follows:-
18.The applicant said that he reported the incident to the 2nd respondent’s safety officer who rinsed his left eye with clean water. After that, he returned to work but still felt uncomfortable with his left eye. He told the safety officer and was sent to QMH for medical treatment. 19.RPS had signed a witness statement dated 18 September 2012. RPS adopted his witness statement as his evidence-in-chief at the trial. 20.In his witness statement, RPS stated that he met the applicant at about 7 pm on 20 August 2008. He described his meeting with the applicant in that evening as follows:-
21.At the trial, RPS said that the date he met the applicant as stated in his witness statement was from his recollection. He could only recalled that it was sometime in August 2008. RPS stated that he had upon the applicant’s request called the applicant’s employer called “Ah Wah”. The applicant’s employer told RPS that he could pay some money to the applicant if the applicant would not proceed with the case. The respondents’ case and evidence 22.The respondents had called the shareholder and director of the 1st respondent, Mr Mok Lai Wah (“MLW”), to testify at the trial. MLW had signed a witness statement dated 15 August 2010 and a supplemental witness statement dated 18 May 2013. He adopted his witness statement and supplemental witness statement as his evidence-in-chief at the trial. 23.MLW stated that he employed the applicant as a general worker at the daily wages of $500.00 since April 2008. He agreed that lunch was provided by the 1st respondent to the applicant. He stated that the applicant earned $5,500.00 to $9,500.00 in each month for the four months from April to July 2008. He produced wages receipts for these months said to have been signed by the applicant. (Exhibits D1 and D2) He said that the receipts were signed by the applicant before him. 24.MLW agreed that he was not at the Site when the applicant sustained the Injury. He was not aware of the applicant suffering any alleged injury until the 1st respondent received letter from the Labour Department. He denied that he had spoken with RPS over the phone or had offered any payment to the applicant. 25.The respondents produced surveillance videos showing the applicant driving motor cycle and light goods vehicle and working in a fish market in September 2012, March and April 2013. Medical evidence 26.When the applicant was sent to QMH on 20 August 2008, he was attended by Dr Ng Pui Lok of the Accident & Emergency Department (“A&E”). Dr Ng recorded that the applicant complained of sudden onset of left eye decrease vision on the day of attendance. Retinal detachment was detected at his left eye. This case was classified in the medical records of A&E as “non-traumatic”. (p 187 of the trial bundle) Dr Ng referred the applicant to the eye clinic of QMH for further treatment. 27.The applicant was diagnosed to be suffering from acute rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with atrophic round holes and macular involvement in his left eye and chronic shallow retinal detachment in his right eye. 28.The applicant was admitted to the Department of Ophthalmology of QMH on 31 August 2008 and undergone operation on 1 September 2008 for the retinal detachment in his left eye. At the same time encircling and cryotherapy was performed for the retinal detachment in his right eye. The applicant was discharged on 4 September 2008. 29.On subsequent follow-up assessment on 3 October 2008, there was recurrence of retinal detachment in his left eye. He was admitted to QMH again from 26 to 31 October 2008 for another operation on his left eye. 30.The applicant was examined by the Experts on 27 June 2011. 31.The Experts issued a joint report dated 9 August 2011. The applicant told the Experts that he sustained injuries while he was working on 20 August 2008. The accident happened while he was dismantling the scaffolding. As he was pulling out the bamboo shoots/wooden plank, another bamboo shoots/wooden plank fell down and hit him on his left eye. He noticed pain and watering from his left eye and also blurring of vision in his left eye. 32.The applicant complained to the Experts of blurring of vision, tiredness and pain in his left eye. 33.The Experts noted that the visual acuity in the applicant’s left eye gradually improved to 75% of normal level after the second operation for his left eye was performed. However, the applicant developed cataract in his left eye in January 2010. 34.Examination by the Experts showed that the retinas were successfully attached. The visual acuity of the applicant’s left eye was very poor but could be corrected with lens to 50% impairment in visual acuity. The visual impairment of his right eye was 20% which could be corrected with lens to 2.5% impairment. There was no cataract in the applicant’s right eye but there was cataract in his left eye with high myopia of 8.50 dioptres. The Experts concluded that the significant blurring of vision in the applicant’s left eye was caused by the cataract and high myopia. After removal of the cataract to his left eye, the Experts expected that the best corrected visual acuity of the applicant’s left eye could be improved to 20% visual impairment. 35.The Experts estimated the loss of earning capacity of the applicant due to the visual impairment in his left eye was 25% at the date of examination. After successful cataract operation, this should be adjusted to be about 10%. 36.The Experts were of the view that after successful cataract extraction surgery, the applicant should be capable of returning to his pre-accident operation. 37.The Experts opined that the retinal detachment of the applicant was due to his own inherent ailment and was not related to the accident alleged by the applicant. The Experts were of the view that this was not a case of traumatic retinal detachment. 38.The applicant underwent operation in India on 17 November 2012 for the cataract in his left eye. Discussion 39.The main issues in dispute in this case are whether there was an accident as alleged by the applicant occurred. If so, whether the Injury was caused by such accident. If not, whether the Injury was arising out of the applicant’s employment with the 1st respondent. After the issue of liability is determined, the court will then deal with the issues on quantum which include the parties’ appeal against the assessment of the Board and the monthly income of the applicant at the time of the alleged accident. Did the alleged accident occur? 40.The applicant alleged that an accident occurred on 20 August 2008 causing the Injury. The burden was on the applicant to prove on balance of probabilities that the accident did occur. 41.The applicant’s case was that he was hit by some object at the left eye on 20 August 2008. What object had hit him was unclear. According to RPS, the applicant told him on 20 August 2008 that the applicant was hit by a hard solid wood like object similar to bamboo. In the notification of accident dated 17 October 2008 submitted to the Labour Department by the applicant, he described that it was a loose piece of log hit logs to his left eye and some sands and dirt went inside his eye (p 85 of the trial bundle). In the Application dated 7 April 2010, the applicant pleaded that he was hit by a bamboo shoot. This was confirmed in the applicant’s witness statement dated 24 August 2010. In June 2011 when the applicant was examined by the Experts, he told the Experts that he was hit by a bamboo shoots/wooden plank. In November 2012, when the applicant received treatment for the cataract in his left eye in India, he told the doctor that he suffered from a bamboo stick injury while working in Hong Kong. In the Amended Application dated 16 April 2013, the applicant pleaded that it was an unknown object which hit him. This version was confirmed in the applicant’s supplemental witness statement dated 26 April 2013. 42.In the trial bundle, there was a copy of Form 2 which was a form to be used by an employer to report work injury of his employee to the Labour Department. The Form 2 in this case stated that: “The I/P claimed some foregin [sic] object got inside his left eye whilst he was working on site”. However, the Form 2 was undated and unsigned (pp 113-117 of the trial bundle). It was not clear who prepared this Form 2. In section F of the Form 2, it stated that the basic salary/wages of the applicant was $0. This cannot be right. MLW stated at the trial that he had not previously seen this Form 2. In the premise, I give no weight to this piece of evidence. 43.The applicant told the Experts that he had told his treating doctors at QMH that he had trauma to his left eye. However, the medical notes kept by A&E of QMH on treatments of the applicant on 20 August 2008 classified the applicant’s case as “non-traumatic” (p 187 of the trial bundle). Dr Ng, the doctor who treated the applicant on 20 August 2008 at A&E of QMH, had issued two reports dated 17 October 2008 and 25 February 2010 (pp 60 and 67 of the trial bundle). In both reports, Dr Ng stated that the applicant complained of decrease of left eye vision on the day of attendance. The reports did not mention that the applicant had told Dr Ng that he had been hit by any object on that day. 44.Dr Fong Hon Chi, Angie and Dr Li Kai Wang, Kenneth both of the eye clinic of QMH made the following notes on treatments to the applicant on 21 August 2008 (pp 191 and 192):-
45.In the consultation note for consultation on 3 October 2008, Dr Li made the following records (p 203 of the trial bundle):-
46.In the consultation note made by Dr Yeung Chun Chun, Jane for consultation on 5 January 2009, Dr Yeung recorded that (p 217 of the trial bundle):-
47.From the above, it can be seen that the applicant’s versions on what had hit him on 20 August 2008 had been changed from “hard solid wood like object similar to bamboo” in August 2008, to “loges” in October 2008, to “bamboo shoot” in April 2010, to “bamboo shoots/wooden plank” in June 2011, to “bamboo stick” in November 2012, and finally to “unknown object” in April 2013. I accept the submission of Mr McGowan, counsel for the applicant, that this was not material inconsistency. It might be due to the use of a language which the applicant was not familiar with. 48.However, there was no mention of any trauma reported by the applicant in the medical notes until 3 October 2008. At the trial, the applicant maintained that he had told the doctors prior to 3 October 2008 that he met with an accident to his left eye at work. Mr McGowan suggested that this was due to poor English of the applicant and lack of interpretation which caused ineffective communication between the applicant and the doctors. This was contradicted by the applicant’s evidence that he had been telling the ophthalmologists at the early consultations that he had met with an accident to his left eye at work but was told by the doctors “treatment first”. If the applicant was telling the truth, it showed that the doctors understood him. If that was the case, Dr Li, who was the applicant’s main treating doctor at QMH since 21 August would not have written the notes set out in para 45 above on 3 October 2008. 49.I do not accept the said suggestion of Mr McGowan. Prior to 3 October 2008, the applicant had been treated by Dr Ng on 20 August 2008, by Dr Fong and Dr Li together on 21 August 2008, by Dr Li on 27 August 2008, 12 September 2008, 18 September 2008 and 26 September 2008. He was admitted to and stayed in QMH from 31 August 2008 to 4 September 2008 (pp 186-202 of the trial bundle). If the applicant found that the medical staff of QMH did not fully understand him, he had ample opportunities to seek assistance on interpretation. Dr Li could understand the applicant’s claim of trauma on 3 October 2008. There were no reasons why Dr Li could not understand the same claim on 21 August 2008 if the applicant had made such claim on that day. It could also be seen from the consultation note of Dr Yeung when she attended the applicant on 5 January 2009 that the applicant had reported “history of blunt trauma at work” to her. There were no difficulties for Dr Yeung to understand the applicant. 50.In fact, all doctors who treated the applicant on 20 or 21 August 2008 had paid specific attention to the issue of trauma. Dr Ng classified the applicant’s case as “non-traumatic” in the records of A&E of QMH. Dr Fong and Dr Li recorded “no history of trauma” in their consultation notes. 51.In the witness statement of RPS, he stated that he saw the applicant on 20 August 2008 with “left eye in dark red and swelling”. This was not mentioned in the applicant’s witness statement or supplemental witness statement. I do not accept that if the applicant’s left eye was bruising and swelling in the evening of 20 August 2008, it would escape the attention of three doctors, ie Dr Ng, Dr Fong and Dr Li, who had attended the applicant on 20 and 21 August 2008. None of the doctors mentioned swelling or bruising of the applicant’s left eye in their contemporaneous notes or records. 52.I also noted that the records kept by A&E of QMH on the applicant’s attendance on 20 August 2008 had the following records:-
53.The above suggested that the applicant had told the medical staff of QMH that he suspected foreign body got into his left eye. The medical staff of QMH had no difficulties in understanding the applicant on 20 August 2008. But there was no mention of any claim of trauma in the said records. Instead, the box “Non-Traumatic” therein was checked as stated above. I find that the applicant has failed to prove on balance of probabilities that he had told the doctors of QMH prior to 3 October 2008 of the alleged accident. I find that the applicant had only told the medical staff of QMH that he suspected that foreign body had gone into his left eye. 54.If the alleged accident had occurred, the applicant would not have missed to tell the doctors who treated him on 20 or 21 August 2008. If the applicant had bruising and swelling at his left eye, the treating doctors would have noticed that. I find that the applicant has failed to prove on balance of probabilities that an accident as alleged had occurred on 20 August 2008. Did the alleged accident cause the injury? 55.If I were wrong in holding that the alleged accident did not occur on 20 August 2008, I will find that the alleged accident, if occurred, did not cause the Injury. 56.The diagnosis of the treating doctors was that the Injury was unlikely to be related to trauma (pp 63, 64 and 203 of the trial bundle). 57.In a medical progress report made by a Dr Ko dated 27 April 2009, Dr Ko had recorded his following medical assessment (p 221 of the trial bundle):-
58.Experts of both parties also opined that the Injury was not related to the alleged accident. In their joint report, the Experts explained that eye trauma could cause horseshoe tears, giant tears and retinal dialysis but not small round retinal holes which was exactly the cause of the Injury sustained by the applicant. They also explained that traumatic retinal detachment usually took several days to develop but the applicant was diagnosed of the Injury within hours of the alleged accident. 59.Mr McGowan referred to a report dated 27 March 2009 issued by Dr Leung Tai Shing, Alfred of the Eye Centre of Hong Kong Baptist Hospital which stated that the applicant “probably suffered from bilateral retinal detachment from possibly alleged injury” (pp 61-62 of the trial bundle). Dr Leung used the words “probably” and “possibly”. He did not elaborate his view and provided no explanation for his said view. Dr Leung attended the applicant once on 9 October 2008 after the applicant had made the first claim of trauma to Dr Li on 3 October 2008. No direction had been obtained by the applicant to adduce this report of Dr Leung as expert evidence. Furthermore, Dr Leung had qualified his report by stating that: “I am supplying information on the only day (9 October 2008) which I had seen this patient [the applicant]”. Dr Leung asked the readers of his report to contact the Ophthalmology Department in QMH for detailed information regarding the history and cause of injury for the applicant’s alleged eye injury. I do not see that this report of Dr Leung proved that the Injury was caused by the alleged accident. 60.Mr McGowan further referred me to a letter dated 17 November 2012 signed by Dr Rohtas Singla of Singla Nursing & Eye Hospital in India. (pp 68-69 of the trial bundle) The applicant had received operation in this hospital for the cataract in his left eye. In the said letter, Dr Singla expressed his opinion that the Injury was caused to the applicant due to his being hit by the bamboo stick told by the applicant. Again, no expert direction had been obtained by the applicant to adduce the opinion of Dr Singla as evidence and the qualification of Dr Singla was unknown to this court. Other than the report from the Experts which was referred to in the letter, it was unclear what information had been made available to Dr Singla before he wrote the said letter. In the said letter Dr Singla stated that he had read the reports prepared by the Experts but he had not mentioned any of the medical reports and notes of the treating doctors. Furthermore, Dr Singla had not attended the trial to answer questions on his said opinion which was differed from that of the treating doctors and the Experts. I do not accept the opinion of Dr Singla. 61.Although the applicant had told the medical staff of QMH that he suspected that foreign body had gone into his left eye, no medical evidence had been adduced to show any causal relation between the Injury and the foreign body which the applicant had suspected to have gone into his left eye on 20 August 2008. Furthermore, it is also not the pleaded case of the applicant that the Injury was caused by such foreign body. 62.I accept the opinion of the Experts and find that even if the accident as alleged by the applicant had occurred, it did not cause or lead to the Injury. Was the injury arising out of the employment with the 1st respondent? 63.Section 5(4)(a) of the Ordinance provides that:-
64.If the alleged accident did occur, I agree that it would be an accident arising out of and in the course of the applicant’s employment with the 1st respondent. However, as I have found that the alleged accident did not occur and there was medical evidence to the contrary, section 5(4)(a) does not assist the applicant. 65.Mr McGowan put forward the proposition that even if the alleged accident did not occur, the Injury might still be arising out of the employment with the 1st respondent. He submitted that if an “inherent ailment” was accelerated or exacerbated ie “triggered” by stresses and strains of work, then it could become an “accident”. He further submitted that the applicant’s employment with the 1st respondent required him to engage in heavy and continuous labour at height, lifting and moving heavy objects up to and above 30 kg each. He referred to an article entitled “Occupational Lifting Tasks and Retinal Detachment in Non-Myopics and Myopics: Extended Analysis of a Case-Control Study” (the “Article”) downloaded from internet to submit that research had demonstrated that there was a risk that the applicant’s work might accelerate or contribute to his retinal detachment. He submitted that on balance of probabilities, there was a causal link between the applicant’s work and the Injury ie the work was a material cause. Mr McGowan referred to Lee Fuh v Ming Hing Construction Co [1991] HKDCLR 105 to submit that the court should apply common sense approach in determining the issue of causation. 66.I agree that the Injury being “an unlooked-for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed” may be regarded as an accident for the purpose of section 5(1) of the Ordinance. (see Fenton v Thorley & Co Ltd [1903] AC 443) It was held in the Lee Fuh case that it was for the court to decide whether there was a sufficient causal connection between the employment and the accident causing death (in our case the Injury). If the opinions of expert medical witnesses differ on the question of causation, the court should apply common sense to resolve the differences. 67.In this case, the opinions of the Experts did not differ on the question of causation. I bear in mind that “causation is essentially a matter for the judge not for the doctors. It is a matter upon which the judge will no doubt be assisted by the medical evidence but he is not dictated to by it” (per Hunter JA in Ocean Tramping Co Ltd v Lee Kin-kai [1991] 2 HKLR 232 at 235 I to J). I accept the following conclusion of the Experts as stated in their joint report:-
68.From the joint report of the Experts, we can see that there are different types of retinal detachment. The Article was a study on one aspect of retinal detachment. Without assistance from medical experts, the court has to take the Article with caution. As the title suggested, it was an extended analysis of a case-control study. The Article also stated that the study was subjected to limitations. The conclusion of the study was that: “These results reinforce the hypothesis that heavy occupational lifting may be a relevant risk factor for retinal detachment.” (emphasis added) Without the assistance of medical experts, the court is uncertain as to the extent of relevancy of the Article to the type of retinal detachment suffered by the applicant. The court is in no position to assess the reliability and limitations of the study subject of the Article. Suffice it to say that the conclusion of the study is not without uncertainty. I place little weight to the Article and do not consider that it assists the applicant’s case. 69.The contention put forward by Mr McGowan was not the pleaded case of the applicant and was mere speculation. There was no evidence, factual or medical, to show sufficient and relevant connection between the applicant’s work and the Injury. In para 7(b) of their joint report, the Experts stated that:-
70.In respect of the aforesaid opinion of the Experts, Mr McGowan advanced the following submission:-
71.The “Triage notes” referred to by Mr McGowan was part of the Accident & Emergency Record of QMH on attendance of the applicant on 20 August 2008 (p 186 of the trial bundle). This document had been considered by the Experts before they issued their joint report. It was listed as document (14) of the documents accessed to by the Experts. In fact, the Experts had made specific reference to the content of this document in page 4 of their report (p 73 of the trial bundle). To say the Experts, two experienced specialists in ophthalmology, had failed to consider part of a medical record referred to in their report is speculative and unfair to the Experts. 72.As per Lord Loreburn in Clover, Clayton & Co Limited v Hughes [1910] AC 242 at 245:-
73.However, in this case, there was no suggestion that the applicant’s work had or might have contributed to or accelerated the applicant’s retinal detachment occurred on 20 August 2008. The diagnosis of Dr Ko and the opinions of the Experts were all to the contrary. I reject the said contention of Mr McGowan. 74.I find that the Injury suffered by the applicant was not arising out of his employment with the 1st respondent. Conclusion on liability 75.After considering all the evidence, I find that the applicant failed to prove on balance of probabilities that the alleged accident occurred. I also find that in any event the Injury was not caused by the alleged accident and it was not arising out of the applicant’s employment with the 1st respondent. 76.In the premise, liability is not established and compensation is not payable by the respondents to the applicant. I dismiss this application of the applicant. Quantum 77.For completeness, I also consider the question of quantum should the respondents be held liable to the applicant’s claims. Appeal against the Form 7 78.The Board assessed that the Injury had resulted in the applicant unable to work for 180.50 days and had caused 40% permanent loss of earning capacity to the applicant (p 223 of the trial bundle). 79.Both the applicant and the respondents appealed against the assessment of the Board. 80.The Experts were of the view that the sick leave granted to the applicant from 20 August 2008 to 13 February 2009 and thereafter intermittent sick leave up to 29 November 2010 was appropriate for the applicant’s condition. 81.Section 10(2) of the Ordinance provides that:-
82.The periods of absence from work assessed by the Board were supported by certificates issued by registered medical practitioners. In the absence of evidence of fraud, the presumption stipulated in section 10(2) will not be rebutted (see Sin Fu Yau v Wong Po Kee Ltd [2007] 1 HKLRD 159 and Cheung Wan Lun v Hop Hing Construction & Engineering (H K) Company & Anor (unrep, DCEC 560/2009, 28 April 2011, Deputy District Judge Wilson Chan (as he then was)). 83.No evidence had been adduced to show that such assessment of the Board was wrong. Although further sick leave had been granted to the applicant after 6 August 2010 (pp 249-256 of the trial bundle), it is likely that it was related to the cataract developed in January 2010. I see no ground to disturb this assessment of the Board on the period of total temporary incapacity caused by the Injury to the applicant. 84.After examining the applicant, The Experts made the following estimation:-
85.The applicant was examined by the Experts on 27 June 2011. He had since received operation on 17 November 2012 for the cataract in his left eye. Nothing suggested that the cataract operation was not a successful one. 86.During the trial, I had watched extracts of the surveillance videos taken in September 2012, March and April 2013 on the applicant. The videos showed that the applicant could drive motor cycle and light goods vehicle in early morning at about 5 am, when it was still dark, without any apparent difficulties. He could help to load and unload fishes in water, which should be of considerable weight, in the same way as his co-workers. There was no indication of his activities being hindered or restricted by any problems with his eyes. Such evidence supported the opinion of the Experts. 87.The Injury occurred in August 2008. All operations to treat the Injury had completed by October 2008. The applicant was found to have early cataract in his left eye in January 2010, ie more than 14 months after the Injury was treated. It was not suggested that the development of cataract in the applicant’s left eye was related in any ways to the Injury. In such case, the respondents should not be held liable for the loss of earning capacity caused to the applicant by the cataract of his left eye. I accept the estimate of the Experts and find that the Injury had caused 10% of permanently loss of earning capacity to the applicant. I dismiss the applicant’s appeal and allow the respondents’ appeal on the assessment of the Board on permanently loss of earning capacity to the applicant caused by the Injury and adjust the assessment of such loss from 40% to 10%. The applicant’s monthly income at the time of the alleged accident 88.The applicant’s case was that at the time of the alleged accident, he worked for the 1st respondent at the daily wages of $500.00. MLW agreed in his witness statement that the applicant was employed by the 1st respondent at the daily wages of $500.00. However, he produced wages receipts said to have been signed by the applicant showing that the daily wages of the applicant was $380.00 or $400.00 at different months. There were no disputes that lunch was provided by the 1st respondent to the applicant. 89.Section 11(1) of the Ordinance provides that:-
90.In the Application, the applicant pleaded that his monthly earning for the month immediately preceding the alleged accident was $12,000.00 and it was the same on average during the 12 months prior to the accident. The applicant’s case was that he had been employed by the 1st respondent since 2007. He stated in his supplemental witness statement that his wages were paid to him either by cash or deposit to his bank account. However, the applicant did not tell the court his actual earnings when he was employed by the 1st respondent, not even for the month immediately preceding the alleged accident. He also did not produce any records of his bank account showing deposit of wages to his account. Instead, the applicant produced documents on his earnings relating to the period from 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006 which showed that he worked for another company at the daily wages of $350.00 (pp 183-185 of the trial bundle). Such information was of no assistance to this court in determining the applicant’s monthly income at the time of the alleged accident. At the trial, the applicant only said that he had worked 25 days for the 1st respondent in a month and that he might be required to work even on Sundays. 91.The 1st respondent’s case was that the applicant was employed by the 1st respondent since April 2008. His average monthly earnings from April to July 2008 was $7,125.00 and his earnings for July 2008 (ie the month preceding the alleged accident) was $8,000.00 (p 1 of the trial bundle). 92.The 1st respondent produced four wages receipts said to have been signed by the applicant for the period from April to July 2008. The applicant denied that he had signed these receipts. 93.MLW said that the applicant signed these receipts before him once every two months. The signatures on the receipts showed the word “Sing” which was different from the applicant’s surname “Singh”. It seemed that they were the applicant’s surname spelt phonetically. The signatures on the receipts were very different from signatures of the applicant appearing on all other documents produced in these proceedings, including:-
94.The above documents were signed by the applicant from 2005 to 2013. One of the documents was signed in October 2008, ie about the same time when the receipts were alleged to have been signed by the applicant. The signatures thereon were very different from the signatures appearing on the receipts. 95.Further, the receipts showed that the daily wages of the applicant were $380.00 or $400.00. This was different from what was stated in the witness statement of MLW. MLW explained that he had mistakenly stated in his witness statement that the applicant’s daily wages were $500.00. MLW’s witness statement was prepared by his legal representatives who should have taken instructions from him before they prepared the same. MLW’s witness statement was not a lengthy document. It was a two pages document consisted of seven short paragraphs in Chinese. The earnings of the applicant was the main feature of the witness statement. I do not accept that MLW would make mistake on such simple and crucial point of his evidence. 96.Furthermore, the wages receipts for the months stated that in May and June 2008 the applicant worked 14.50 days each month at the daily wages of $380.00. The earning of the applicant in each of these months should be $5,510.00 instead of $5,500.00 as stated on the wages receipts concerned. MLW did not provide any explanation to these discrepancies. I do not think that a worker working for a daily wages of $380.00 would agree to round-down his hard earned wages. 97.I find that the respondents have failed to prove on balance of probabilities that these receipts were signed by the applicant. 98.I find that the applicant was employed by the 1st respondent at the daily wages of $500.00 at the time of the alleged accident. 99.There were no disputes that lunch was provided by the 1st respondent to the applicant on top of his daily wages. Mr McGowan submitted that value of such lunch should be taken into account in calculating the compensation payable to the applicant. He estimated the value of such lunch at $30.00 per day. 100.Section 3(1) of the Ordinance defines “earnings” to include the value of any food supplies to the employee by the employer. Although no evidence had been adduced by the parties to show the value of the lunch provided by the 1st respondent to the applicant, I accept that the estimate of Mr McGowan was a reasonable one. I find that the applicant also received benefit of lunch at $30.00 per day provided by the 1st respondent. The total earnings of the applicant were $530.00 for each day he worked for the 1st respondent. 101.Although the receipts were not signed by the applicant, they were produced by the 1st respondent. When the 1st respondent produced such receipts, it would have checked the work records of the 1st respondent, if not that of the applicant, at the material times. The receipts showed that the applicant worked 14.50 to 25 days each month during the period from April to July 2008 and he worked 20 days in July 2008. MLW also confirmed at the trial that the applicant had worked 25 days in April 2008. 102.The applicant had been working for the 1st respondent for at least more than four months before the alleged accident. Bearing in mind that the applicant was a daily wages worker, the 1st respondent would have provided reasonable amount of work to the applicant for the applicant to stay with the 1st respondent’s employment for over four months. Otherwise, the applicant would have to find alternative employment to earn a living. The applicant might have worked 25 days or more in a month and he might have worked less in another month. I find that the level of work stated in the receipts indicated the level of work undertaken by the applicant at the material times. 103.The average working day as showed by the receipts was $18.50 days per month and they showed that the applicant worked 20 days in July 2008, ie the month immediately before the alleged accident. After considering all available evidence, I find that the applicant worked 20 days each month at the daily earnings of $530.00 (ie $500.00 + $30.00) at the time of the alleged accident. His monthly income for the purpose of calculating compensation under the Ordinance, if payable, is $10,600.00 (ie $530.00 x 20 days). Section 9 compensation 104.The applicant was born in 1976 and was 31 years old at the time of the alleged accident. Pursuant to sections 7 and 9 of the Ordinance, the compensation for loss of earning capacity will be $10,600.00 x 96 x 10% =$101,760.00. Section 10 compensation 105.The Injury had caused the applicant unable to work for 180.50 days. The amount of compensation under section 10 of the Ordinance, if payable, will be $50,964.80 (ie $10,600.00 x [180.50 ÷ 30] x 4/5). Section 10A compensation 106.The applicant’s medical expenses claim was for $1,170.00 which was supported by receipts and not disputed by the respondents. This amount will be allowed. Total 107.The total amount of compensation, if payable, will be $153,894.80. Interest 108.Interest on compensation, if payable, shall run from the date of accident (ie 20 August 2008) to the date of judgment at half of the judgment rate and thereafter at judgment rate. Order 109.Failing on liability, the applicant’s claim for compensation must be dismissed. I so order. 110.Costs shall follow event. I make an order nisi that the applicant shall pay the costs of the respondents for this Action including all costs previously reserved. Costs shall be taxed, if not agreed, with certificate for counsel. In the absence of application within 14 days to vary the aforesaid order nisi, the costs order shall become absolute.
Mr James HM McGowan, instructed by MCA Lai & Co, for the applicant Mr Osmond Lam, instructed by Cheng Yeung & Co, for the 1st and the 2nd respondents Please refer to CACV226/2013 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under DCEC 348/2010