YU PUN YUEN v. NG KWOK MAN t/a EAST MOUNTAIN ENGINEERING CO. AND OTHERS
On the balance of probabilities the applicant was directly employed by the 1st respondent because the 1st respondent exercised control, provided premises, tools and instructions and issued a certificate of employment; the applicant's evidence on wage ($650/day) and likely 28 days/month was accepted; awards under sections 9,10 and 10A were calculated accordingly and credit given for periodical payments, resulting in judgment against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents for $533,246.66 and dismissal of the claim against the 4th respondent.
- Citation
- YU PUN YUEN v. NG KWOK MAN t/a EAST MOUNTAIN ENGINEERING CO. AND OTHERS
- Parties
- Applicant: YU PUN YUEN; 1st Respondent: NG KWOK MAN trading as EAST MOUNTAIN ENGINEERING COMPANY; 2nd Respondent: YIM SHEK CHUNG trading as HANG FAT ENGINEERING COMPANY; 3rd Respondent: JETCO CATERING EQUIPMENT COMPANY LIMITED; 4th Respondent: CROWE INSURANCE GROUP (HONG KONG) LIMITED
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 28 February 2003
- Case Number
- DCEC358/2001
- Procedural Posture
- Employees Compensation / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for applicant against 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents in the sum of $533,246.66; claim against 4th respondent dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Employer Identification, Wage Computation, Permanent Loss of Earning Capacity, Sick Leave Calculation, Credit for Periodical Payments, Insurance Policy Exclusions for Subcontractors
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
YU PUN YUEN
Applicant
NG KWOK MAN trading as EAST MOUNTAIN ENGINEERING COMPANY
1st Respondent
YIM SHEK CHUNG trading as HANG FAT ENGINEERING COMPANY
2nd Respondent
JETCO CATERING EQUIPMENT COMPANY LIMITED
3rd Respondent
CROWE INSURANCE GROUP (HONG KONG) LIMITED
4th Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant was employed by the 1st respondent or the 2nd respondent
- 2 Correct daily wage and number of working days per month for compensation calculations
- 3 Whether the 4th respondent insurer is liable given policy exclusion for subcontractor employees
Ratio Decidendi
On the balance of probabilities the applicant was directly employed by the 1st respondent because the 1st respondent exercised control, provided premises, tools and instructions and issued a certificate of employment; the applicant's evidence on wage ($650/day) and likely 28 days/month was accepted; awards under sections 9,10 and 10A were calculated accordingly and credit given for periodical payments, resulting in judgment against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents for $533,246.66 and dismissal of the claim against the 4th respondent.
Court Disposition
Judgment for applicant against 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents in the sum of $533,246.66; claim against 4th respondent dismissed.
Orders
- Judgment for the applicant against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents in the sum of $533,246.66
- Interest at one half of the judgment rate from the date of the accident until payment
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment