GILL AJMER SINGH v. WAH HING SCAFFOLDING ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

GILL AJMER SINGH v. WAH HING SCAFFOLDING ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the alleged accident occurred or that the retinal detachment was caused by any workplace accident; medical evidence established the detachment was due to an inherent condition and not trauma; claim dismissed; for completeness Board's permanent loss...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
GILL AJMER SINGH v. WAH HING SCAFFOLDING ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Gill Ajmer Singh; 1st Respondent: Wah Hing Scaffolding Engineering Limited; 2nd Respondent: Gammon Construction Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 October 2013
Case Number
DCEC348/2010
Procedural Posture
Employees' Compensation (cap 282) / Judgment (district Court)
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of liability; compensation not payable; costs ordered against applicant (order nisi)
Legal Topics
Causation, Medical Expert Evidence, Earnings Assessment, Quantum, Liability
Source Language
en
Workers' Compensation Employment Law Personal Injury Causation Medical Expert Evidence Earnings Assessment Quantum Liability

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gill Ajmer Singh

Applicant

Wah Hing Scaffolding Engineering Limited

1st Respondent

Gammon Construction Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees' Compensation (cap 282) / Judgment (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an accident occurred on 20 August 2008
  2. 2 Whether the alleged accident caused the applicant's retinal detachment
  3. 3 Whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the alleged accident occurred or that the retinal detachment was caused by any workplace accident; medical evidence established the detachment was due to an inherent condition and not trauma; claim dismissed; for completeness Board's permanent loss assessment reduced from 40% to 10% on medical evidence.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of liability; compensation not payable; costs ordered against applicant (order nisi)

Orders

  • Application dismissed; no liability established and no compensation payable
  • Costs shall follow the event; order nisi that applicant shall pay respondents' costs including previously reserved costs