So Ka Chun v. Ho Tai Shing and Others

So Ka Chun v. Ho Tai Shing and Others

On the balance of probabilities the court found R1 acted as agent of R2 and had authority to engage the Applicant; alternatively R1 was at least a subcontractor employer under s.3. Consequently R2 was employer and R3 as principal contractor was severally liable under s.24. The Applicant was not an independent contractor. The accepted average monthly wage was HK$10,100 and percentage losses and medical evidence supported the quantum awarded.

Citation
So Ka Chun v. Ho Tai Shing and Others
Parties
Applicant: SO Ka-chun; 1st Respondent: HO Tai-shing; 2nd Respondent: Hing Cheong Decoration Co. Ltd.; 3rd Respondent: Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd.
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 August 2002
Case Number
DCEC592/2000
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Applicant; 2nd and 3rd Respondents found severally liable; 3rd Respondent entitled to indemnity from 2nd Respondent
Legal Topics
Employees Compensation Ordinance, Employer Liability, Principal Contractor Liability, Subcontracting, Agency, Quantum of Damages, Interest
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Workers' Compensation Personal Injury Contract Law Employees Compensation Ordinance Employer Liability Principal Contractor Liability Subcontracting +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SO Ka-chun

Applicant

HO Tai-shing

1st Respondent

Hing Cheong Decoration Co. Ltd.

2nd Respondent

Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd.

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Applicant was an employee of 2nd Respondent via 1st Respondent or an independent contractor
  2. 2 Whether 1st Respondent acted as agent or subcontractor of 2nd Respondent
  3. 3 Liability of 2nd Respondent and main contractor 3rd Respondent under s.24 of the Employees Compensation Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the court found R1 acted as agent of R2 and had authority to engage the Applicant; alternatively R1 was at least a subcontractor employer under s.3. Consequently R2 was employer and R3 as principal contractor was severally liable under s.24. The Applicant was not an independent contractor. The accepted average monthly wage was HK$10,100 and percentage losses and medical evidence supported the quantum awarded.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Applicant; 2nd and 3rd Respondents found severally liable; 3rd Respondent entitled to indemnity from 2nd Respondent

Orders

  • Award to Applicant of HK$254,373.00
  • Interest at half judgment rate from date of accident (3 April 1999) to date of judgment (7 August 2002), thereafter at full judgment rate until payment in full