29 Nov 2023
Leave to appeal was refused because the respondent failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or other compelling reason: the post-judgment evidence was not sufficiently material, and the judge's findings on earning capacity were supported by prior income history and payment behaviour and therefore not demonstrably unreasonable.
23 May 2008
The Court allowed the appeal in part because the judge's timing for the plaintiff becoming a master scaffolder was not supported once the judge's adverse opinion of the plaintiff's alleged laziness was discounted; recalculation produced a higher figure for future loss ($1,329,120) while the awards for past loss and loss of earning capacity were upheld; the judge's factual findings based on evidence were otherwise affirmed and the appeal succeeded only to increase the award for future loss with costs nisi to the plaintiff.
4 Jan 2006
Applying MPPO s.7 and s.11 the court found Petitioner's realistic earning capacity HK$5,000/month, Respondent's earning capacity at least HK$12,000/month since November 2004, and assessed the childrens' and Petitioner's needs; accordingly varied the interim maintenance to HK$3,000 per child per month from 1 November 2004 and left the nominal spousal maintenance unchanged (HK$1 per annum).
6 Apr 1995
Court found Applicant was employed as Assistant Director cum Log Keeper, accepted that the trip was undertaken to scout a required location and that Applicant drove with employer's tacit consent; applying the broad multifactor approach from Nancollas the accident arose out of and in the course of employment; monthly earning capacity was assessed at HK$9,000 (derived from HK$18,000 film salary), applied the statutory formula and precedents to award s.9, s.10 and s.10A compensation totalling HK$362,469 plus interest and costs.
20 May 1988
On the facts the appellant was permanently and totally incapacitated as a result of the injuries; special circumstances under section 9(1A) require applying 100% of the section 7 calculation; statutory minima increases are not retrospective so the applicable minima are those at the date of the accident; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the section 7 calculation of HK$104,680 is substituted for the lower award.