Chu Shu Wor v Cheng Kai Chai T/a Carry Engineering Co

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date14 March 2003
Judgement NumberDCEC161/2002
Subject MatterEmployee"s Compensation Case
DCEC000161/2002 CHU SHU WOR v. CHENG KAI CHAI t/a CARRY ENGINEERING CO

DCEC000161/2002

DCEC161/2002

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 161 OF 2002

----------------------------

BETWEEN
Chu Shu Wor Applicant
AND
Cheng Kai Chai trading as Carry Engineering Company Respondent

----------------------------

Coram: H H Judge Lok in Court

Date of Judgment: 14 March 2003

----------------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------------

1. This is a claim for compensation under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance, Cap. 282, Laws of Hong Kong ("the Ordinance").

2. In the beginning of the trial, I was given to understand that the parties had agreed on most of the issues in the present case except the following:

(i) whether the Applicant was employed by the Respondent at the time of the accident?

(ii) whether the court should adopt 10% or 15% loss of earning capacity for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation under section 9?

3. I now turn to the first issue. The Applicant testified in the trial that he was employed by the Respondent at the time of the accident. He had fixed working hours. His wages, calculated on a daily basis, would be paid by the Respondent twice a month, and he would also get extra pay for his overtime work. Further, the Respondent's supervisor would arrange the work for the Applicant, and he had to perform the work under the supervision of the Respondent's supervisor. Lastly, except for some small tools such as screwdrivers, other machines and equipments for the work, such as electric drills, were provided by the Respondent.

4. In support of the Applicant's case, Mr Lee for the Applicant also relies on the contents of the Form 2 submitted by the Respondent, in which the Respondent admitted that he was the employer of the Applicant at the time of the accident. Further, the Respondent also gave him advance payment for his employment compensation in the sum of $90,000.

5. Quite surprisingly, the Respondent is not adducing any evidence to rebut the Applicant's allegations. Based on the evidence of the Applicant, I have no doubt in my mind that he was employed by the Respondent at the relevant time.

6. For the Respondent, Miss Luk tries to rely on the fact that the Applicant also worked for some other companies at the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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