Ali Shoukat v Hang Seng Bank Ltd

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberDCEC69/2002
Subject MatterEmployee"s Compensation Case
DCEC000069/2002 ALI SHOUKAT v. HANG SENG BANK LTD

DCEC000069/2002

DCEC69/2002

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION CASE NO. 69 OF 2002

__________

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BETWEEN

ALI SHOUKAT Applicant
AND
HANG SENG BANK LIMITED Respondent

__________

Coram: H.H. Judge Wong in Court

Date of Hearing: 9 December 2003

Date of Handing Down Reasons for Decision: 20 January 2004

_________________

Reasons for Decision

_________________

The Issue

1. In this application all matters save one are agreed i.e. the Statutory Interpretation of S. 10 (2) Cap. 282.

2. S. 10 (2) states "For the purposes of this section a period of absence from duty certified to be necessary by a medical practitioner, a registered Dentist, an ordinary Assessment Board or a special Assessment Board shall be deemed to be a period of total temporary incapacity irrespective of the outcome of the injury".

Background

3. The Applicant has been certified by a medical practitioner for a period of absence from duty exceeding 2 years following the accident.

4. The parties have commissioned expert medical reports. The Applicant's expert is of the view that sick leave for 13 months and 4 days is necessary while the Respondent's expert opined that 12 months' sick leave is necessary.

5. The Applicant was injured on 10 April 2000. He appeared before the Employees' Compensation (Ordinary Assessment) Board on 16 May 2001. The Board assessed that the period of absence from duty necessary as a result of injury was 13 months and the loss of earning capacity permanently caused by the injury was 3%.

6. He appeared before the Board of Review on 8 August 2001. The Review Board's finding as to the period of absence from duty necessary as a result of injury was 15 months and the loss of earning capacity permanently caused by the injury remained at 3%.

Did S. 10 (2) raise a rebuttable presumption or are definitive

7. Mr. Clement for the Applicant referred to S. 10 (5) which states:

"An employee who has received periodical payments under this section for a period of 24 months from the date of the commencement of the temporary incapacity or for such further period being not more than 12 months as the Court may allow in any particular case shall no longer be entitled to periodical payments under this section but shall be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Singh Harjit v Determination Business Ltd T/a Muse Studio
    • Hong Kong
    • District Court (Hong Kong)
    • 27 February 2015
    ...dicta of HH Judge Muttrie in L v Equal Opportunities Commission (unrep, DCEO No 6 of 1999) as confirmed in Ali Shoukat v Hang Seng Bank [2004] 1 HKLRD 415, “If it is right, it means that the employer can look no further than the sick leave certificate… That cannot be right. Quite apart from......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT