CHAN SO MING 對 CHUEN KEE CONSTRUCTION CO LTD 及另一人

CHAN SO MING 對 CHUEN KEE CONSTRUCTION CO LTD 及另一人

Claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the alleged accident occurred or that her asserted injuries were caused by the alleged accident; the respondents' witnesses were found credible and claimant's account was riddled with unexplained contradictions and evidence of exaggeration and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKDC 946
Parties
Applicant: CHAN SO MING; First Respondent: CHUEN KEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED; Second Respondent: GAMMON BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 August 2021
Case Number
DCEC1868/2018
Procedural Posture
Employees' Compensation Claim (cap.282) / Judgment at Regional Court After Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed; claimant failed to prove the accident or causation; respondents' s18 appeal allowed in part on hypothetical assessment but main claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Employees' Compensation Ordinance (s9, S10, S10 a, S18), Causation and Burden of Proof, Witness Credibility and Adverse Inference, Medical Expert Joint Report, Assessment of Loss of Earning Capacity, 'doctor‑shopping' and Proof of Sick Leave
Source Language
ch
Employment/workers' Compensation Civil Evidence and Procedure Personal Injury/medical Evidence Employees' Compensation Ordinance (s9, S10, S10 A, S18) Causation and Burden of Proof Witness Credibility and Adverse Inference Medical Expert Joint Report Assessment of Loss of Earning Capacity +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHAN SO MING

Applicant

CHUEN KEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED

First Respondent

GAMMON BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees' Compensation Claim (cap.282) / Judgment at Regional Court After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant proved the accident occurred on 30 August 2017
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's injuries were caused by the alleged accident
  3. 3 Appropriate permanent loss of earning capacity percentage and length of incapacity for work

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the alleged accident occurred or that her asserted injuries were caused by the alleged accident; the respondents' witnesses were found credible and claimant's account was riddled with unexplained contradictions and evidence of exaggeration and fabrication, justifying dismissal of the compensation claim and an adverse view of claimed incapacity; alternatively, if accident were accepted, the appropriate permanent loss is 0.5% and incapacity limited to four months as per court's assessment of medical evidence.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; claimant failed to prove the accident or causation; respondents' s18 appeal allowed in part on hypothetical assessment but main claim dismissed

Orders

  • Dismissal of claimant's employees' compensation claim
  • Claimant to pay respondents' costs; if parties cannot agree on costs amount, costs to be assessed by the Court