MAN SAI MING v. MAINTOP ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

MAN SAI MING v. MAINTOP ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Contemporaneous documentary and payment evidence demonstrated C&I (not Chi Shing) contracted the works and paid Maintop; the applicant lacked contemporaneous or credible evidence to contradict this and could not plausibly prove at trial that Chi Shing subcontracted the work to Maintop; therefore the claim against Chi Shing was a plain and obvious case for striking out.

Citation
MAN SAI MING v. MAINTOP ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Man Sai Ming; 1st Respondent: Maintop Engineering Limited; 2nd Respondent: Chi Shing Construction and Engineering Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 June 2015
Case Number
DCEC228/2014
Procedural Posture
Employees' Compensation / Strike Out Application (interlocutory)
Outcome
Claim against 2nd respondent (Chi Shing Construction and Engineering Limited) struck out; nisi costs order made in favour of 2nd respondent
Legal Topics
Employees' Compensation Ordinance, Strike Out, Principal Contractor Liability, Subcontracting, Evidential Burden
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Personal Injury Civil Procedure Employees' Compensation Ordinance Strike Out Principal Contractor Liability Subcontracting Evidential Burden

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Man Sai Ming

Applicant

Maintop Engineering Limited

1st Respondent

Chi Shing Construction and Engineering Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees' Compensation / Strike Out Application (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 2nd respondent was the principal contractor liable under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the application discloses a reasonable cause of action against the 2nd respondent
  3. 3 Whether the claim against the 2nd respondent is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Contemporaneous documentary and payment evidence demonstrated C&I (not Chi Shing) contracted the works and paid Maintop; the applicant lacked contemporaneous or credible evidence to contradict this and could not plausibly prove at trial that Chi Shing subcontracted the work to Maintop; therefore the claim against Chi Shing was a plain and obvious case for striking out.

Court Disposition

Claim against 2nd respondent (Chi Shing Construction and Engineering Limited) struck out; nisi costs order made in favour of 2nd respondent

Orders

  • The claim against Chi Shing Construction and Engineering Limited is struck out.
  • Nisi order that Man Sai Ming shall pay Chi Shing the costs of defending the Application and the present application, including any costs reserved; costs to be taxed if not agreed with certificate for counsel.