Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Loss of earning capacity assessment

Legal area

Court

2 Oct 2024

LUO JUNHAO v. KEN PLASTICS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1622
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1109/2021

Court exercised discretion under section 2(2) to deem applicant employed; accepted joint medical opinion to assess permanent loss of earning capacity at 74%; adopted daily-wage anchored method and a notional 24 work days per month giving monthly earnings $14,400; preferred Fund Board's medical view that temporary incapacity lasted one year; awarded section 9 compensation $1,022,976 and section 10 compensation $134,720, total $1,157,696 with prescribed interest and costs orders.
31 Oct 2022

DELIVERY HERO FOOD HONG KONG LTD formerly known as ROCKET FOOD LTD v. MOHAMMAD WASEEM

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1114
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2308/2020

The court accepted the treating doctors and occupational therapy assessments and the Medical/Review Boards' findings that the respondent required sick leave until 31 January 2021 and that a 3% loss of earning capacity was appropriate; the employer’s s16 examination and surveillance did not sufficiently rebut the s10(2) presumption for the certified period; therefore awards were calculated accordingly, credit given for periodical payments already paid, interest ordered and costs ordered nisi in favour of the respondent.
5 Oct 2022

KO WAI FAN v. TUNG WAH GROUP OF HOSPITALS

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1086
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2142/2018

The court accepted the respondent's expert (Dr Cheng) and rejected the applicant's subjective complaints as not credible in the absence of supporting objective findings and given the applicant's clinic-attendance pattern; the certified sick leave period was reduced to 26 September 2016 to 1 August 2017 (310 days), loss of earning capacity was assessed at 0.5%, and total compensation payable was assessed at HK$5,980.91 with interest and costs nisi.
2 Sept 2020

YIM TIFFANY SONJA formerly known as YIM SHUK YIN v. HONG KONG AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 694
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC357/2015

Judge found the applicant grossly exaggerated symptoms and preferred opinions of Dr Kou and Dr Law that the orthopaedic injury was minor and psychiatric disorder mild; employer had rebutted the presumption of prolonged incapacity by evidence including surveillance and inconsistent medical records; accordingly reduced assessment to 3% loss of earning capacity (1% orthopaedic, 2% psychiatric) and certified 9 months' sick leave (6 months orthopaedic, 3 months psychiatric); because advanced payments already exceeded the assessed entitlement no further sum was payable and the application was dismi…
28 Aug 2019

CHEUNG YEE MAN ANDY v. LUX\'S INTERNATIONAL LTD t/a COUP DE FOUDRE

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1146
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2691/2016

Court accepted applicant's contractual monthly earnings of HK$11,500 as includible under s3 and computable under the lesser period provision of s11(1) given employment of three days and absence of contrary employer evidence; accepted medical experts' combined orthopaedic (3%) and psychiatric (4%) assessments to set aggregate 7% loss of earning capacity, allowed applicant's appeal against the Board's 1.5% assessment, and computed statutory compensation under sections 9, 10 and 10A resulting in net award of HK$263,024 after deducting advance payment.
6 Jul 2017

CHAN TIT HUNG v. MAN KEE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN TIT HUNG v. MAN KEE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2315/2015

Leave to adduce supplemental medical evidence answering Question 1 (whether the applicant is unable to return to his pre-accident job due to combined effects of accident and pre-existing condition) was refused because the question seeks evidence about fitness to return to pre-accident work which is not relevant to the statutory task of assessing percentage loss of earning capacity under s.9 absent pleaded special circumstances; however the court allowed a different supplemental question addressing the total percentage loss of earning capacity caused by both the pre-existing condition and the…
5 Feb 2015

LIU CHEUK FAI v. 吳遠強

Citation

LIU CHEUK FAI v. 吳遠強
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1361/2012

The judge accepted the applicant as credible and rejected the respondent's evidence, found the applicant was an employee and that the accident occurred in the course of employment; medical evidence supported a permanent impairment but not to the 6% suggested by the expert, and the court assessed loss of earning capacity at 4%, awarding compensation accordingly.
18 Feb 2013

CHEN YONG v. CHIU YUK LIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEN YONG v. CHIU YUK LIN AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1411/2011

Court held s11(1)(b) was impracticable on the evidence and applied s11(2), fixing monthly earnings at $12,500 (500 x 25). The court allowed the appeal on loss of earning capacity, accepting an 8% LOEC based on medical opinion and post-accident factual findings. Compensation was computed under ss9,10 and 10A accordingly and net payment ordered to the applicant in the sum of $20,020 with interest and costs nisi.
4 Aug 2009

WONG KA YEE v. GAY GIANO INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

WONG KA YEE v. GAY GIANO INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC436/2007

Psychiatric expert evidence was admitted because the applicant produced sufficient prima facie evidence of a recognisable psychiatric condition linked to the accident, cardiothoracic experts could not rule out psychiatric causation of chronic pain, and the genuineness and severity of chronic pain (and its psychiatric correlation) are central contested issues that psychiatric opinion would materially assist the trial judge; expert directions were varied to permit one cardiothoracic and one psychiatric expert for each party and procedural timetables were imposed.
10 Oct 2006

TSANG KWONG TONG v. TENNILLE DECORATION & DESIGN LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TSANG KWONG TONG v. TENNILLE DECORATION & DESIGN LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV42/2006

The Court upheld the trial judge's factual finding that the 1st respondent was the employer because the judge was entitled to accept the 3rd respondent's evidence after seeing the witnesses and there was no basis for appellate interference; on quantum, although the trial judge applied the wrong test regarding certificate cancellation, the Court reviewed the Board's 18% assessment against the total available evidence and the claimant's special circumstances under s.9(1A) and found 18% not inappropriate, so the appeal was dismissed and the Board's assessment was upheld.