KWAN YEE CHOR v. HUNG FAU METAL CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

KWAN YEE CHOR v. HUNG FAU METAL CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

Court allowed Applicant's appeal under s.9(1A), rejected fixed percentage opinion of the medical expert as determinative, accepted Applicant's uncontroverted evidence that he could not return to his pre-accident iron-work employment and had limited alternative prospects, and therefore assessed permanent partial incapacity compensation using the Hong Kong Paper Mills/Lui formula resulting in s.9 award of $653,422; also awarded s.10 $7,280 and s.10A $3,508 and allowed withdrawal of the claim against the insurer while preserving the Applicant's right to a separate claim.

Citation
KWAN YEE CHOR v. HUNG FAU METAL CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Parties
Employee/claimant: Applicant; Employer/1st Respondent: 1st Respondent; Principal Contractor/2nd Respondent: 2nd Respondent; Insurer/3rd Respondent: 3rd Respondent
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 July 2002
Case Number
DCEC520/2001
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation Ordinance Claim / Judgment (reasons for Judgment Following Hearing)
Outcome
Judgment for Applicant against 1st and 2nd Respondents; appeal allowed to vary assessment under s.9(1A) and higher compensation awarded
Legal Topics
Loss of Earning Capacity, Assessment of Damages, S.9(1 A) of Employees Compensation Ordinance, S.10 Sick Pay Compensation, S.10 a Medical Expenses, S.44 Insurer Liability, Admissibility of Expert Opinion on Earning Capacity
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Workers' Compensation Personal Injury Insurance Law Loss of Earning Capacity Assessment of Damages S.9(1 A) of Employees Compensation Ordinance S.10 Sick Pay 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Employee/claimant

1st Respondent

Employer/1st Respondent

2nd Respondent

Principal Contractor/2nd Respondent

3rd Respondent

Insurer/3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation Ordinance Claim / Judgment (reasons for Judgment Following Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.9(1A) permits assessment of higher loss of earning capacity than ordinary table assessment
  2. 2 Appropriate percentage loss of earning capacity to apply for permanent partial incapacity
  3. 3 Whether medical expert opinion expressing percentage loss of earning capacity is determinative/admissible

Ratio Decidendi

Court allowed Applicant's appeal under s.9(1A), rejected fixed percentage opinion of the medical expert as determinative, accepted Applicant's uncontroverted evidence that he could not return to his pre-accident iron-work employment and had limited alternative prospects, and therefore assessed permanent partial incapacity compensation using the Hong Kong Paper Mills/Lui formula resulting in s.9 award of $653,422; also awarded s.10 $7,280 and s.10A $3,508 and allowed withdrawal of the claim against the insurer while preserving the Applicant's right to a separate claim.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Applicant against 1st and 2nd Respondents; appeal allowed to vary assessment under s.9(1A) and higher compensation awarded

Orders

  • Judgment entered for Applicant against 1st and 2nd Respondents
  • s.9 compensation awarded HKD 653422