SZE WING YAM v. CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CORPORATION AND OTHERS

SZE WING YAM v. CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CORPORATION AND OTHERS

S11(1)(a) inapplicable because applicant had not been employed by same employer for the whole preceding month; s11(2) inapplicable because applicant has a substantial employment history meaning computation is practicable; applied s11(1)(b) and, on evidence, adopted a figure of 20 days per month at $1,200/day producing $12,800 plus medical expenses of $2,698; ordered respondents to pay those sums.

Citation
SZE WING YAM v. CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CORPORATION AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: Sze Wing-yam; 1st Respondent: China State Construction Engineering Corporation; 2nd Respondent: Chan Chi-keung; 3rd Respondent: Tse Tin-fook; 4th Respondent: Tse Pui Biu trading as Biu Kee Construction Engineering Co.
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 November 2003
Case Number
DCEC571/2003
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation / Application for Periodical Payments Ruling
Outcome
Application allowed in part
Legal Topics
Periodical Payments, Calculation of Earnings, Section 11 Employees Compensation Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Personal Injury Workers' Compensation Periodical Payments Calculation of Earnings Section 11 Employees Compensation Ordinance

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sze Wing-yam

Applicant

China State Construction Engineering Corporation

1st Respondent

Chan Chi-keung

2nd Respondent

Tse Tin-fook

3rd Respondent

Tse Pui Biu trading as Biu Kee Construction Engineering Co.

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation / Application for Periodical Payments Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to award periodical payments pending trial
  2. 2 Which subsection of s11 E.C. Ordinance governs calculation of monthly earnings
  3. 3 Whether subsection (2) applies to short casual employment of 3 days

Ratio Decidendi

S11(1)(a) inapplicable because applicant had not been employed by same employer for the whole preceding month; s11(2) inapplicable because applicant has a substantial employment history meaning computation is practicable; applied s11(1)(b) and, on evidence, adopted a figure of 20 days per month at $1,200/day producing $12,800 plus medical expenses of $2,698; ordered respondents to pay those sums.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part

Orders

  • Respondents to pay $12,800 (periodical payment based on 20 days at $1,200/day)
  • Respondents to pay medical expenses of $2,698