NG WING KWONG 對 TAM CHI WING t/a WING FUNG ENGINEERING CO 及另一人

NG WING KWONG 對 TAM CHI WING t/a WING FUNG ENGINEERING CO 及另一人

Court found on evidence that no binding settlement agreement existed (defendants failed to prove existence and failed to file witness statements), and even if it existed it would be invalid under s31; TCN is liable as principal contractor under s24(1); the court used the 12-month average monthly income (HK$14,154) as most favourable under s11(1) and applied statutory formulas to award HK$30,573 (s9), HK$102,878 (s10 after deducting HK$33,000 already paid) and HK$6,161 (s10A) totalling HK$139,612 plus interest; defendants liable jointly and severally and ordered to pay costs.

Citation
NG WING KWONG 對 TAM CHI WING t/a WING FUNG ENGINEERING CO 及另一人
Parties
Applicant: NG WING KWONG; First Respondent: TAM CHI WING trading as WING FUNG ENGINEERING CO TCN AIRCONDITION ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED; Second Respondent: TCN AIRCONDITION ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 April 2017
Case Number
DCEC892/2015
Procedural Posture
Employees' Compensation Claim Under Employees' Compensation Ordinance / Judgment at Trial
Outcome
Judgment for applicant; first and second respondents ordered to pay statutory compensation and costs
Legal Topics
Employees' Compensation Ordinance, Settlement Agreement Validity, Principal Contractor Liability, Calculation of Compensation
Source Language
CH
Employment Law Personal Injury/workers' Compensation Contract Law Employees' Compensation Ordinance Settlement Agreement Validity Principal Contractor Liability Calculation of Compensation

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

Parties

NG WING KWONG

Applicant

TAM CHI WING trading as WING FUNG ENGINEERING CO TCN AIRCONDITION ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED

First Respondent

TCN AIRCONDITION ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees' Compensation Claim Under Employees' Compensation Ordinance / Judgment at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a settlement agreement existed between the applicant and the first respondent
  2. 2 Whether any settlement could bar the applicant's statutory claim under s31 of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether the second respondent (TCN) as principal contractor is vicariously/statutorily liable under s24(1)

Ratio Decidendi

Court found on evidence that no binding settlement agreement existed (defendants failed to prove existence and failed to file witness statements), and even if it existed it would be invalid under s31; TCN is liable as principal contractor under s24(1); the court used the 12-month average monthly income (HK$14,154) as most favourable under s11(1) and applied statutory formulas to award HK$30,573 (s9), HK$102,878 (s10 after deducting HK$33,000 already paid) and HK$6,161 (s10A) totalling HK$139,612 plus interest; defendants liable jointly and severally and ordered to pay costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for applicant; first and second respondents ordered to pay statutory compensation and costs

Orders

  • First and second respondents to pay the applicant HK$139,612 as compensation
  • The sum of HK$33,000 paid by the first respondent is to be deducted from the s10 award as accounted in the judgment