TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

The court held that R2 is entitled to full indemnity from R1 under s.24(2) of the Ordinance including costs, but exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution of that indemnity order until determination of R1's pending claim against its insurer (Ming An), on the grounds that Ming An was effectively involved in the proceedings and R1 had a substantive insurance claim which made a stay just and convenient.

Citation
TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Li Yuen Yau; Applicant: Lee Chiu Lan; Applicant: Ting Kam Yuen (for Ignatova Lyudmila Mikhalovna); Applicant: Ting Kam Yuen (for Mikhaylishina Olesya Igorevna); Applicant: Ting Kam Yuen (for Sherstyuk Irina Sergeevna); Applicant: Ting Kam Yuen (for Stepanova Valentina Konstantinovna); Applicant: Ting Kam Yuen (for Pozdnyak Olga Lvovna); Applicant: Ting Kam Yuen (for Trofimova Oksana Vladimirovna); 1st Respondent: Viatech Engineering Limited; 2nd Respondent: Zen Pacific Civil Contractors Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 August 2007
Case Number
DCEC244/2004
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation Ordinance Claims (fatal Cases) / Post Judgment Indemnity and Stay of Execution Hearing
Outcome
R2 entitled to full indemnity from R1; execution of indemnity order stayed pending determination of R1's claim against insurer Ming An.
Legal Topics
Section 24 Indemnity Under Employees Compensation Ordinance, Stay of Execution of Judgment, Subcontractor/principal Contractor Indemnity, Insurance Coverage Dispute
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Section 24 Indemnity Under Employees Compensation Ordinance Stay of Execution of Judgment Subcontractor/principal Contractor Indemnity Insurance Coverage Dispute

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Li Yuen Yau

Applicant

Lee Chiu Lan

Applicant

Ting Kam Yuen (for Ignatova Lyudmila Mikhalovna)

Applicant

Ting Kam Yuen (for Mikhaylishina Olesya Igorevna)

Applicant

Ting Kam Yuen (for Sherstyuk Irina Sergeevna)

Applicant

Ting Kam Yuen (for Stepanova Valentina Konstantinovna)

Applicant

Ting Kam Yuen (for Pozdnyak Olga Lvovna)

Applicant

Ting Kam Yuen (for Trofimova Oksana Vladimirovna)

Applicant

Viatech Engineering Limited

1st Respondent

Zen Pacific Civil Contractors Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation Ordinance Claims (fatal Cases) / Post Judgment Indemnity and Stay of Execution Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal contractor (R2) is entitled to an indefeasible indemnity from the employer/sub-contractor (R1) under s.24(2) of the Employees Compensation Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the s.24(2) indemnity includes costs and interest
  3. 3 Whether the court should stay execution of the indemnity order pending R1's claim against its insurer (Ming An)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that R2 is entitled to full indemnity from R1 under s.24(2) of the Ordinance including costs, but exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution of that indemnity order until determination of R1's pending claim against its insurer (Ming An), on the grounds that Ming An was effectively involved in the proceedings and R1 had a substantive insurance claim which made a stay just and convenient.

Court Disposition

R2 entitled to full indemnity from R1; execution of indemnity order stayed pending determination of R1's claim against insurer Ming An.

Orders

  • R2 to be fully indemnified by R1 for all compensations paid to any Applicant together with all costs and interests pursuant to the order dated 20 March, 2007
  • R1 to file a claim against Ming An under the employees compensation insurance contract within 42 days