CHAN TIT HUNG v. MAN KEE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS

CHAN TIT HUNG v. MAN KEE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS

Leave to adduce supplemental medical evidence answering Question 1 (whether the applicant is unable to return to his pre-accident job due to combined effects of accident and pre-existing condition) was refused because the question seeks evidence about fitness to return to pre-accident work which is not relevant to the statutory task of assessing percentage loss of earning capacity under s.9 absent pleaded special circumstances; however the court allowed a different supplemental question addressing the total percentage loss of earning capacity caused by both the pre-existing condition and the accident and directed consideration of whether orthopaedic opinion is required.

Citation
CHAN TIT HUNG v. MAN KEE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: Chan Tit Hung; 1st Respondent: Man Kee Construction Engineering Company Limited; 2nd Respondent: Tin Wo Engineering Company Limited; 3rd Respondent: China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 July 2017
Case Number
DCEC2315/2015
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation / Interlocutory Summons for Leave to Adduce Supplemental Expert Medical Evidence (pre Trial)
Outcome
Summons partially dismissed: leave refused for the applicant's proposed Question 1; no order on Question 2 (withdrawn); allowed a revised supplemental question to the joint experts and directed parties to address whether orthopaedic opinion is required.
Legal Topics
Employees Compensation Ordinance S.9 Assessment, Pre Existing Condition and Causation, Loss of Earning Capacity Assessment, Admissibility of Supplemental Expert Reports, Appropriate Expert Field (neurosurgery Vs Orthopaedics)
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Personal Injury Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Employees Compensation Ordinance S.9 Assessment Pre Existing Condition and Causation Loss of Earning Capacity Assessment Admissibility of Supplemental Expert Reports +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Tit Hung

Applicant

Man Kee Construction Engineering Company Limited

1st Respondent

Tin Wo Engineering Company Limited

2nd Respondent

China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Limited

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation / Interlocutory Summons for Leave to Adduce Supplemental Expert Medical Evidence (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether supplemental medical evidence on the claimant's fitness to return to pre-accident job is relevant to assessment under s.9 of the ECO
  2. 2 Whether pre-existing degenerative spinal disease should be taken into account or apportioned in assessing percentage loss of earning capacity
  3. 3 Whether joint neurosurgeons are the appropriate experts or orthopaedic opinion is required

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to adduce supplemental medical evidence answering Question 1 (whether the applicant is unable to return to his pre-accident job due to combined effects of accident and pre-existing condition) was refused because the question seeks evidence about fitness to return to pre-accident work which is not relevant to the statutory task of assessing percentage loss of earning capacity under s.9 absent pleaded special circumstances; however the court allowed a different supplemental question addressing the total percentage loss of earning capacity caused by both the pre-existing condition and the accident and directed consideration of whether orthopaedic opinion is required.

Court Disposition

Summons partially dismissed: leave refused for the applicant's proposed Question 1; no order on Question 2 (withdrawn); allowed a revised supplemental question to the joint experts and directed parties to address whether orthopaedic opinion is required.

Orders

  • Leave to adduce supplemental medical evidence to answer Question 1 refused
  • No order on Question 2 (withdrawn)