YEUNG MAN TSAN v. FAMOUS DRAGON ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

YEUNG MAN TSAN v. FAMOUS DRAGON ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

On the balance of probabilities the court found R1 was the Applicant's employer based on contemporaneous statutory Forms and admissions by the company officer together with insurance records; alternatively R3 was also the Applicant's employer by virtue of apparent authority and estoppel arising from the recruitment poster and conduct; consequently R1 and R3 are jointly and severally liable.

Citation
YEUNG MAN TSAN v. FAMOUS DRAGON ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: Yeung Man Tsan; 1st Respondent: Famous Dragon Engineering Limited; 2nd Respondent: Falcon Insurance Company (Hong Kong) Limited; 3rd Respondent: Ringo Decoration Company Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 September 2005
Case Number
DCEC594/2003
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation / Liability Trial Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Judgment for the Applicant against R1 and R3 jointly and severally on liability; quantum to be assessed separately; intervention by R2 unsuccessful.
Legal Topics
Employer Identification, Undisclosed Principal, Apparent Authority, Estoppel, Employees Compensation Ordinance, Costs
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Insurance Law Agency Law Occupational Safety Civil Procedure Employer Identification Undisclosed Principal Apparent Authority +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yeung Man Tsan

Applicant

Famous Dragon Engineering Limited

1st Respondent

Falcon Insurance Company (Hong Kong) Limited

2nd Respondent

Ringo Decoration Company Limited

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation / Liability Trial Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant was employed by R1, R3, or jointly by R1 and R3 at the time of the accidents
  2. 2 Application of agency principles to an unnamed/undisclosed principal
  3. 3 Whether R3 is bound as employer by apparent authority/estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the court found R1 was the Applicant's employer based on contemporaneous statutory Forms and admissions by the company officer together with insurance records; alternatively R3 was also the Applicant's employer by virtue of apparent authority and estoppel arising from the recruitment poster and conduct; consequently R1 and R3 are jointly and severally liable.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Applicant against R1 and R3 jointly and severally on liability; quantum to be assessed separately; intervention by R2 unsuccessful.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Applicant against Famous Dragon Engineering Limited (R1) and Ringo Decoration Company Limited (R3) jointly and severally; quantum to be assessed.
  • Order nisi that R1, R2 and R3 shall jointly and severally pay the Applicant's costs of the action up to and including the trial, to be taxed if not agreed; to become absolute after 14 days unless varied.