Hsu Shu Chiao v. Lung Cheong Toys Ltd.

Hsu Shu Chiao v. Lung Cheong Toys Ltd.

At common law the deceased was not in the course of his employment because his journey was ordinary travel to/from work for personal/social purposes and not incidental to his employment; s.5(4)(d) does not apply because the transport at the time of the accident was a common taxi hired by the deceased and not operated by or on behalf of the employer or pursuant to arrangements made with the employer; accordingly the claim fails.

Citation
Hsu Shu Chiao v. Lung Cheong Toys Ltd.
Parties
Applicant (father of Deceased): Hsu Shu Chiao; Respondent (employer): Lung Cheong Toys Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 February 2001
Case Number
DCEC599/1997
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation Claim / Judgment (district Court)
Outcome
Claim dismissed. Deceased not in the course of employment at time of accident. Costs awarded to respondent. Certificate for counsel granted. Legal Aid taxation of applicant's costs ordered.
Legal Topics
Course of Employment, Travel to and From Work, Employer Provided Transport, Scope of Employment, Deemed to Arise Out of Employment (s.5(4)(d))
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Workers' Compensation Personal Injury Statutory Interpretation Road Traffic Accident Course of Employment Travel to and From Work Employer Provided Transport +2 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hsu Shu Chiao

Applicant (father of Deceased)

Lung Cheong Toys Limited

Respondent (employer)

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation Claim / Judgment (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased was in the course of his employment at the time of the fatal accident
  2. 2 Whether s.5(4)(d) Employees Compensation Ordinance applies where employee was travelling by a hired taxi not provided by employer
  3. 3 Whether overtime and travel to Shenzhen for personal/social reasons can be treated as incidental to employment or as an emergency/peripatetic circumstance

Ratio Decidendi

At common law the deceased was not in the course of his employment because his journey was ordinary travel to/from work for personal/social purposes and not incidental to his employment; s.5(4)(d) does not apply because the transport at the time of the accident was a common taxi hired by the deceased and not operated by or on behalf of the employer or pursuant to arrangements made with the employer; accordingly the claim fails.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed. Deceased not in the course of employment at time of accident. Costs awarded to respondent. Certificate for counsel granted. Legal Aid taxation of applicant's costs ordered.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Costs to respondent