LAM CHI BIU v. MAK KEE LTD AND ANOTHER

LAM CHI BIU v. MAK KEE LTD AND ANOTHER

The presumption in s5(4)(a) was not rebutted because the 2nd respondent adduced no evidence displacing it; therefore the assault was held to have occurred in the course of and arisen out of employment. The unappealed Certificate of Compensation Assessment is binding on quantum, so the assessed sums under ss9 and 10 were awarded; no evidence supported an award under s10A.

Citation
LAM CHI BIU v. MAK KEE LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Lam Chi Biu; 1st Respondent: Mak Kee Limited; 2nd Respondent: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 June 2004
Case Number
DCEC1203/2002
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation Case No. 1203 of 2002 / Judgment (district Court)
Outcome
Application allowed in part; applicant awarded compensation; 2nd respondent held liable; 1st respondent absent and in liquidation.
Legal Topics
Employees Compensation Ordinance, Arising Out of Employment, Presumption Under S5(4)(a), Quantum of Compensation, Interest and Costs
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Workers' Compensation Personal Injury Insurance Law Employees Compensation Ordinance Arising Out of Employment Presumption Under S5(4)(a) Quantum of Compensation +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Chi Biu

Applicant

Mak Kee Limited

1st Respondent

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation Case No. 1203 of 2002 / Judgment (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment
  2. 2 Whether the presumption under s5(4)(a) was rebutted
  3. 3 Proper quantum of compensation under ss9,10 and 10A

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption in s5(4)(a) was not rebutted because the 2nd respondent adduced no evidence displacing it; therefore the assault was held to have occurred in the course of and arisen out of employment. The unappealed Certificate of Compensation Assessment is binding on quantum, so the assessed sums under ss9 and 10 were awarded; no evidence supported an award under s10A.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; applicant awarded compensation; 2nd respondent held liable; 1st respondent absent and in liquidation.

Orders

  • Award $142,245.33 under section 9 of the Employees Compensation Ordinance
  • Award $604,800 under section 10 of the Employees Compensation Ordinance