KONG LAP HUNG v. CHAN CHIU AND ANOTHER

KONG LAP HUNG v. CHAN CHIU AND ANOTHER

Under section 16 EO Cap.282 an unreasonable refusal to undergo surgery curtails compensation only where (1) the employee was obliged to submit to treatment by the employer's doctor under s.16(6) (i.e. was not attended by his own doctor), and (2) the refusal aggravated the injury; mere prevention of improvement or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
KONG LAP HUNG v. CHAN CHIU AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: KONG LAP HUNG; 1st Respondent: CHAN CHIU; 2nd Respondent: SHUI ON BUILDING CONTRACTORS LIMITED
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 September 1991
Case Number
DCEC420/1989
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation / District Court Judgment (assessment Hearing)
Outcome
Applicant awarded compensation; refusal of surgery did not curtail entitlement under section 16; total award $230,168 subject to adjustment for prior payments and further argument on interest and costs
Legal Topics
Refusal of Surgery, Mitigation of Loss, Section 16 Employees Compensation Ordinance, Causation, Assessment of Compensation
Source Language
en
Employees Compensation Personal Injury Statutory Interpretation Medical Treatment Refusal of Surgery Mitigation of Loss Section 16 Employees Compensation Ordinance Causation +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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KONG LAP HUNG

Applicant

CHAN CHIU

1st Respondent

SHUI ON BUILDING CONTRACTORS LIMITED

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation / District Court Judgment (assessment Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an employee's unreasonable refusal to undergo surgery can curtail compensation under section 16 of the Employees Compensation Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether Hong Kong Paper Mills Ltd v. Chan Kin-wu was decided per incuriam for not considering English authorities
  3. 3 Whether the employer's doctor must be one to whom the employee was obliged to submit under s.16(6) for curtailment to arise

Ratio Decidendi

Under section 16 EO Cap.282 an unreasonable refusal to undergo surgery curtails compensation only where (1) the employee was obliged to submit to treatment by the employer's doctor under s.16(6) (i.e. was not attended by his own doctor), and (2) the refusal aggravated the injury; mere prevention of improvement or refusal of advice (as distinct from instructions) does not suffice. On the facts both conditions failed, so no curtailment arose.

Court Disposition

Applicant awarded compensation; refusal of surgery did not curtail entitlement under section 16; total award $230,168 subject to adjustment for prior payments and further argument on interest and costs

Orders

  • Award $174,600 for permanent partial incapacity under section 9
  • Award $55,568 for temporary total incapacity under section 10