30 Apr 2019
Claimant was an employee of the respondent and sustained the workplace injury as described; on the accepted facts and medical assessment permanent loss of earning capacity is 2% and 524 days' incapacity are compensable; awards under ss.9,10 and 10A are calculated as set out and respondent must pay interest and costs.
8 Mar 2013
The court accepted the Board's 2.5% loss of earning capacity assessment, proceeded in the respondent's absence, held the $27,000 received was not a periodical payment under s10 and therefore properly deductible, and calculated the award as $21,600 (s9) + $23,520 (s10) + $510 (s10A) less $27,000 = $18,630, plus interest and costs.
8 Oct 2008
The judge accepted Dr Wong's medical opinion that permanent impairment was 2-3% (rather than the Board's 1%), allowed the applicant's appeal on impairment, applied the statutory formulas in sections 9, 10 and 10A to calculate compensation, and ordered the respondent to pay a total award of $28,793 with interest and costs.
10 Jul 2006
It was practicable to compute monthly earnings under s11(1)(b); the correct lesser period was the full calendar months of March–April 2003; the deceased's monthly earnings were calculated at HK$15,375, s11(2) was not applicable, and compensation under s6(1) was fixed at HK$15,375 x 60 = HK$922,500 with s6(5) agreed at HK$35,000; 50% of the s6(1) award to the widow and 50% to be shared equally by three children; s6(5) award to widow; interest at half judgment rate from date of accident to award date and judgment rate thereafter until payment.
28 Mar 2002
On a multifactorial factual assessment (deceased could not refuse orders and worked exclusively for respondent, respondent provided the truck and paid all expenses, deceased bore no financial risk and had no business registration), the deceased was an employee of the respondent at the time of the fatal accident and entitled to statutory compensation under s.6 Cap.282; interest was awarded at the judgment rate from the date of the accident to judgment.
15 Nov 2000
The 1st respondent failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he beneficially owned the two suit properties; the appropriation of the sale proceeds without informing or consulting the other 50% shareholder breached the inferred common understanding that profits would be shared and was objectively unfairly prejudicial; accordingly a s.168A remedy was appropriate and the court ordered the 1st respondent to buy out the petitioner's share at 50% of the company's unappropriated profit per the 1998 audited accounts, with interest from the date of the petition.
9 Jun 1980
The Court held the trial judge's adverse credibility finding was unsustainable because the undisputed payment of $150 per month by the deceased and the Social Welfare Department report (showing no government allowance before the deceased's death) established at least partial dependency on the balance of probabilities; accordingly the appeal was allowed and compensation awarded with interest and costs.