ALI HASHAM v. BM HUMAN RESOURCES & CONSTRUCTIONS LTD

ALI HASHAM v. BM HUMAN RESOURCES & CONSTRUCTIONS LTD

The court held that the respondent's s.16 argument was improperly raised after liability had been determined and, on the evidence, the respondent failed to satisfy statutory requirements of s.16 (no specific time/place/doctor notified), so the applicant's right was not extinguished; the respondent's challenge to the certified sick leave was time-barred by s.18 and in any event the employer failed to rebut the presumption under s.10(2); therefore the Form 7 figures were accepted and compensation was assessed accordingly.

Citation
[2025] HKDC 2035
Parties
Applicant: Ali Hasham; Respondent: BM Human Resources & Constructions Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 December 2025
Case Number
DCEC914/2024
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation / Assessment of Compensation (post Liability)
Outcome
Applicant awarded compensation after credit for advanced payment
Legal Topics
Section 9, Section 10, Section 10 a, Section 16, Section 18, Sick Leave, Medical Examination, Form 7 Appeal, Loss of Earning Capacity, Interest, Costs
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Workers' Compensation Statutory Interpretation Civil Procedure Section 9 Section 10 Section 10 a Section 16 +7 more

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Hasham

Applicant

BM Human Resources & Constructions Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation / Assessment of Compensation (post Liability)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to attend employer-requested medical examination extinguishes employee's right to compensation under s.16 ECO
  2. 2 Whether the certified sick leave period in Form 7 can be challenged after the 6-month appeal period under s.18 ECO
  3. 3 Whether the employer rebutted the statutory presumption of temporary incapacity under s.10(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent's s.16 argument was improperly raised after liability had been determined and, on the evidence, the respondent failed to satisfy statutory requirements of s.16 (no specific time/place/doctor notified), so the applicant's right was not extinguished; the respondent's challenge to the certified sick leave was time-barred by s.18 and in any event the employer failed to rebut the presumption under s.10(2); therefore the Form 7 figures were accepted and compensation was assessed accordingly.

Court Disposition

Applicant awarded compensation after credit for advanced payment

Orders

  • Respondent to pay Applicant HKD 174872 with interest at half the judgment rate from date of Accident to date of judgment and thereafter at the judgment rate until payment.
  • Costs order nisi: Respondent to pay Applicant's costs of the Application, with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed; order to become absolute unless varied within 14 days.