LEE YUEN FAN v. FUNG LAI KAN AND OTHERS

LEE YUEN FAN v. FUNG LAI KAN AND OTHERS

The applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he attended the Site on 7/12/2003 and therefore failed to establish that any injury arose out of and in the course of his employment; the court preferred the respondents' contemporaneous palm-scanner and registry evidence and found the applicant's evidence inconsistent and undermined by delay, and dismissed the application.

Citation
LEE YUEN FAN v. FUNG LAI KAN AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: Mr Lee; Employer / Sub Sub Contractor: 1st Respondent; Sub Contractor: 2nd Respondent; Main Contractor: 3rd Respondent
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 October 2006
Case Number
DCEC699/2005
Procedural Posture
Employees' Compensation Claim Under Employees Compensation Ordinance Cap 282 / Judgment Handed Down After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Employees Compensation Ordinance Cap 282, Causation, Proof of Attendance/entry Records, Quantum of Compensation, Delay in Reporting Injury
Source Language
EN
Employment Personal Injury Workers' Compensation Employees Compensation Ordinance Cap 282 Causation Proof of Attendance/entry Records Quantum of Compensation Delay in Reporting Injury

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Lee

Applicant

1st Respondent

Employer / Sub Sub Contractor

2nd Respondent

Sub Contractor

3rd Respondent

Main Contractor

Procedural Posture

Employees' Compensation Claim Under Employees Compensation Ordinance Cap 282 / Judgment Handed Down After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the applicant attend the site on 7/12/2003?
  2. 2 Did the applicant suffer an injury arising out of and in the course of employment?
  3. 3 If liability established, what is the appropriate quantum of compensation?

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he attended the Site on 7/12/2003 and therefore failed to establish that any injury arose out of and in the course of his employment; the court preferred the respondents' contemporaneous palm-scanner and registry evidence and found the applicant's evidence inconsistent and undermined by delay, and dismissed the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs to the Respondents with certificate for counsel to be taxed if not agreed