HOSSAIN MOHAMMED SAJIB v. CHUEN KEE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES RECYCLE (HONG KONG) LIMITED (in Liquidation) AND ANOTHER

HOSSAIN MOHAMMED SAJIB v. CHUEN KEE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES RECYCLE (HONG KONG) LIMITED (in Liquidation) AND ANOTHER

Applicant's evidence was found incredible and unreliable; he failed to discharge the burden to prove employment and that the injury arose in course of employment and therefore the claim was dismissed. Legally, if liability had been established the court would exercise s.2(2) discretion for lawful work and, once exercised, would assess quantum without regard to the claimant's unlawful status (affecting s.9 and s.10 assessments).

Citation
[2020] HKDC 1200
Parties
Applicant: HOSSAIN MOHAMMED SAJIB; 1st Respondent: CHUEN KEE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES RECYCLE (HONG KONG) LIMITED (in Liquidation); 2nd Respondent: EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ASSISTANCE FUND BOARD
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 December 2020
Case Number
DCEC2689/2016
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation / Judgment
Outcome
Applicant's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Employees Compensation Ordinance, Section 2(2) Discretion, Section 9 Compensation, Section 10 Compensation, Illegal/unlawful Employment, Credibility Assessment, Quantum of Damages
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Workers' Compensation Immigration Law Public Policy Employees Compensation Ordinance Section 2(2) Discretion Section 9 Compensation Section 10 Compensation +3 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HOSSAIN MOHAMMED SAJIB

Applicant

CHUEN KEE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES RECYCLE (HONG KONG) LIMITED (in Liquidation)

1st Respondent

EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ASSISTANCE FUND BOARD

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant was employed by 1st respondent at time of accident
  2. 2 Whether an accident occurred on 28 April 2015 as alleged
  3. 3 Whether injury arose in course of employment

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant's evidence was found incredible and unreliable; he failed to discharge the burden to prove employment and that the injury arose in course of employment and therefore the claim was dismissed. Legally, if liability had been established the court would exercise s.2(2) discretion for lawful work and, once exercised, would assess quantum without regard to the claimant's unlawful status (affecting s.9 and s.10 assessments).

Court Disposition

Applicant's claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Costs nisi: applicant to bear costs of the Fund Board (including reserved costs) and of the 1st respondent, certificate for one counsel, and costs to be taxed if not agreed