CHOW MUI v. CHOW CHEUK CHUNG AND OTHERS

CHOW MUI v. CHOW CHEUK CHUNG AND OTHERS

First Respondent was the statutory principal (his business was providing watchmen) and the Intervener was the contractor who executed the work; Second Respondent (shipowner) was not a principal. Although the collapse occurred during a rest period and thus was in the course of employment, the applicant failed to prove the rupture arose out of the deceased's employment (insufficient causal link to employment), and therefore the claim for compensation was dismissed; costs awarded against applicant in favour of respondents and intervener on Scale V with Legal Aid Ordinance to apply. The judge noted that had causation been established he would have assessed compensation at HKD 12,960 and...

Citation
CHOW MUI v. CHOW CHEUK CHUNG AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant (widow/claimant): Chow Mui on behalf of herself and other dependants of the deceased; 1st Respondent (proprietor of Luen Lee Stevedores): Chow Cheuk Chung; 2nd Respondent (owner of the Kowloon Star): Hope Sea Limited; Intervener (recruiter/contractor of Watchmen): Lee On
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 September 1970
Case Number
DCEC78/1969
Procedural Posture
Workmen's Compensation / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of proof that the accident arose out of the deceased's employment; claim against Second Respondent dismissed.
Legal Topics
Principal and Contractor, Accident in the Course of Employment, Arising Out of Employment (causation), Employer Liability, Assessment of Dependants' Compensation
Source Language
EN
Workmen's Compensation Employment Law Maritime Law Principal and Contractor Accident in the Course of Employment Arising Out of Employment (causation) Employer Liability Assessment of Dependants' Compensation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chow Mui on behalf of herself and other dependants of the deceased

Applicant (widow/claimant)

Chow Cheuk Chung

1st Respondent (proprietor of Luen Lee Stevedores)

Hope Sea Limited

2nd Respondent (owner of the Kowloon Star)

Lee On

Intervener (recruiter/contractor of Watchmen)

Procedural Posture

Workmen's Compensation / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the shipowner (2nd Respondent) or the stevedore (1st Respondent) was the statutory principal under s.23(1) WCO 1964
  2. 2 Whether the Intervener was the contractor and the direct employer of the deceased
  3. 3 Whether the death was an "accident" in the course of employment (timing during rest period)

Ratio Decidendi

First Respondent was the statutory principal (his business was providing watchmen) and the Intervener was the contractor who executed the work; Second Respondent (shipowner) was not a principal. Although the collapse occurred during a rest period and thus was in the course of employment, the applicant failed to prove the rupture arose out of the deceased's employment (insufficient causal link to employment), and therefore the claim for compensation was dismissed; costs awarded against applicant in favour of respondents and intervener on Scale V with Legal Aid Ordinance to apply. The judge noted that had causation been established he would have assessed compensation at HKD 12,960 and...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of proof that the accident arose out of the deceased's employment; claim against Second Respondent dismissed.

Orders

  • Applicant's claim dismissed
  • Application against Second Respondent dismissed