DAYAWON FE BATIANCILA v. TOEPKER CHIEN CHI

DAYAWON FE BATIANCILA v. TOEPKER CHIEN CHI

On the balance of probabilities the court preferred the defendant's evidence over the plaintiff's, found the plaintiff failed to prove that the alleged accident occurred as pleaded and therefore that liability under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance and in common law was not established; accordingly both claims were dismissed.

Citation
DAYAWON FE BATIANCILA v. TOEPKER CHIEN CHI
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Dayawon Fe Batiancila; Defendant/respondent: Toepker Chien Chi
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 June 2013
Case Number
DCPI118/2012
Procedural Posture
Combined Employees' Compensation (dcec 1272/2010) and Personal Injuries (dcpi 118/2012) in District Court / Judgment (delivered 5 June 2013 After Trial on 6 8 March 2013)
Outcome
Both the Employees' Compensation Action (DCEC 1272/2010) and the Personal Injuries Action (DCPI 118/2012) are dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's costs (nisi).
Legal Topics
Slip and Fall, Employer Liability Under Employees' Compensation Ordinance, Evidence and Credibility, Quantum of Damages, Medical Causation and Symptom Exaggeration
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Personal Injury Tort Insurance/employees' Compensation Slip and Fall Employer Liability Under Employees' Compensation Ordinance Evidence and Credibility Quantum of Damages +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dayawon Fe Batiancila

Plaintiff/applicant

Toepker Chien Chi

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Combined Employees' Compensation (dcec 1272/2010) and Personal Injuries (dcpi 118/2012) in District Court / Judgment (delivered 5 June 2013 After Trial on 6 8 March 2013)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff suffered an accident in the course of employment on 21 June 2010
  2. 2 Whether the defendant employer was liable under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance Cap 282
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was negligent or in breach of contract or statutory/common duty of care

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the court preferred the defendant's evidence over the plaintiff's, found the plaintiff failed to prove that the alleged accident occurred as pleaded and therefore that liability under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance and in common law was not established; accordingly both claims were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Both the Employees' Compensation Action (DCEC 1272/2010) and the Personal Injuries Action (DCPI 118/2012) are dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's costs (nisi).

Orders

  • Both claims dismissed (DCEC 1272/2010 and DCPI 118/2012)
  • Nisi order that plaintiff pay the costs of both the EC Action and the PI Action to the defendant, including all costs previously reserved, to be taxed if not agreed with certificate for counsel