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) including costs and interest, but exercise of the court’s discretion warranted staying execution of the indemnity order because there was a substantial unresolved insurance coverage dispute with Ming An, Ming An had effectively conducted R2’s defence and was a de facto party, and the circumstances made a stay just and convenient; the stay was granted subject to R1 filing a claim against Ming An within 42 days and payment of interest at half the judgment rate during the stay.

Citation
TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Li Yuen Yau; Applicant: Lee Chiu Lan; Applicant: Ting Kam Yuen; 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
DCEC246/2004
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation (statutory Awards) / Post Judgment Applications: Indemnity and Stay of Execution Hearing on Summonses
Outcome
Indemnity order in favour of R2 confirmed but execution of that indemnity order stayed pending determination of R1’s claim against its insurer; procedural and financial conditions imposed on the stay.
Legal Topics
Statutory Indemnity Under S.24, Stay of Execution, Insurance Coverage Dispute, De Facto Party / Piercing Corporate Veil, Costs and Interest
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Maritime Law Statutory Indemnity Under S.24 Stay of Execution Insurance Coverage Dispute De Facto Party / Piercing Corporate Veil +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Li Yuen Yau

Applicant

Lee Chiu Lan

Applicant

Ting Kam Yuen

Applicant

Viatech Engineering Limited

1st Respondent

Zen Pacific Civil Contractors Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation (statutory Awards) / Post Judgment Applications: Indemnity and Stay of Execution Hearing on Summonses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether principal contractor is entitled to an indemnity from the employer under s.24(2) of the Employment Compensation Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the indemnity under s.24(2) extends to costs and interest
  3. 3 Whether execution of an indemnity order should be stayed pending resolution of insurer coverage dispute

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that R2 is entitled to full indemnity from R1 under s.24(2) including costs and interest, but exercise of the court’s discretion warranted staying execution of the indemnity order because there was a substantial unresolved insurance coverage dispute with Ming An, Ming An had effectively conducted R2’s defence and was a de facto party, and the circumstances made a stay just and convenient; the stay was granted subject to R1 filing a claim against Ming An within 42 days and payment of interest at half the judgment rate during the stay.

Court Disposition

Indemnity order in favour of R2 confirmed but execution of that indemnity order stayed pending determination of R1’s claim against its insurer; procedural and financial conditions imposed on the stay.

Orders

  • R2 to be fully indemnified by R1 for all compensations paid to any Applicant together with all costs and interest incurred pursuant to the order dated 20 March 2007
  • R1 to file a claim against Ming An Insurance Company (Hong Kong) Ltd under the employees compensation insurance contract within 42 days