TAI CHOI YAU v. YAU WAN HING formerly t/a 盈電網絡工程公司 AND ANOTHER

TAI CHOI YAU v. YAU WAN HING formerly t/a 盈電網絡工程公司 AND ANOTHER

The court found on the facts that the 2nd respondent, as principal contractor, was liable under s.24; the applicant's monthly earnings for compensation were to be taken as the statutory maximum $23,580 under s.11(2); loss of earning capacity was assessed at 8% on a fresh s.18 assessment; sick leave adopted as 304 days; applying ss.9,10 and 10A produced the specified monetary awards and judgment was entered against the 2nd respondent with the 1st and 2nd respondents ordered to pay.

Citation
TAI CHOI YAU v. YAU WAN HING formerly t/a 盈電網絡工程公司 AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; 1st Respondent: 1st Respondent; 2nd Respondent: VIGOR DESIGN & CONTRACTING CO., LIMITED
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 May 2016
Case Number
DCEC2178/2014
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation Ordinance Claim / Trial and Judgment (assessment of Compensation)
Outcome
Judgment for the applicant against the 2nd Respondent; order that 1st and 2nd respondents pay employees compensation
Legal Topics
Employees Compensation, Liability of Principal Contractor Under S.24, Loss of Earning Capacity, Calculation of Monthly Earnings Under S.11(2), S.18 Appeal, S.9 S.10 S.10 a Compensation
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Personal Injury Statutory Compensation Employees Compensation Liability of Principal Contractor Under S.24 Loss of Earning Capacity Calculation of Monthly Earnings Under S.11(2) S.18 Appeal +1 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

1st Respondent

1st Respondent

VIGOR DESIGN & CONTRACTING CO., LIMITED

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation Ordinance Claim / Trial and Judgment (assessment of Compensation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd respondent is liable under s.24 of the Employees Compensation Ordinance for the applicant's workplace accident
  2. 2 Proper basis for assessing the applicant's monthly earnings (s.11(2))
  3. 3 Assessment of loss of earning capacity on s.18 appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the facts that the 2nd respondent, as principal contractor, was liable under s.24; the applicant's monthly earnings for compensation were to be taken as the statutory maximum $23,580 under s.11(2); loss of earning capacity was assessed at 8% on a fresh s.18 assessment; sick leave adopted as 304 days; applying ss.9,10 and 10A produced the specified monetary awards and judgment was entered against the 2nd respondent with the 1st and 2nd respondents ordered to pay.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicant against the 2nd Respondent; order that 1st and 2nd respondents pay employees compensation

Orders

  • Order that 1st and 2nd respondents pay compensation under s.9 in the sum of HKD 135820.80
  • Order that 1st and 2nd respondents pay compensation under s.10 in the sum of HKD 191155.20