Ho Chi Ching v Saiky Co Ltd

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberDCEC149/2002
Subject MatterEmployee"s Compensation Case
DCEC000149/2002 HO CHI CHING v. SAIKY CO LTD

DCEC000149/2002

DCEC149/2002

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 149 OF 2002

BETWEEN
Ho Chi-ching (何緻菁) Applicant
AND
Saiky Company Limited (細記有限公司) 1st Respondent
Cheng Tin Bill (鄭天標) trading as Kwong Kee Meat Company (廣記肉食公司) 2nd Respondent

Coram: H H Judge Lok in Court

Date of Decision: 16 February 2004

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1. This is an application by the 2nd Respondent to set aside the judgment on liability granted by Judge Carlson on 3 May 2002. The 2nd Respondent failed to attend that hearing but he had filed a purported answer with the court on 17 April 2002, and so the issue in this application is whether the court could enter judgment under such circumstances.

2. There are two matters I need to consider in the present application:

(i) whether the document filed by the 2nd respondent on 17 April 2002 was a proper answer?

(ii) assuming that it was a proper answer, whether the court could enter judgment against the 2nd Respondent if he failed to attend the hearing on 3 May 2002?

I will deal with these issues in turn.

Was the document a proper answer?

3. The document filed by the 2nd Respondent is a so-called "homemade defence". It was written in the form of a letter with the Registry of the District Court as the addressee. In the said document, the 2nd Respondent admitted that the Applicant was employed by him from October 2000 to January 2001. However, as the occupational disease or the injury complained of by the Applicant was suffered by her outside the term of employment with the 2nd Respondent, the latter denies liability to pay compensation in the present case.

4. In this Application, the Applicant complains that she had suffered occupational disease of tennis elbow of right forearm whilst he was working for the 2nd Respondent. In fact, the Applicant also lodged a separate application for employee compensation against other respondents in application DCEC No. 653 of 2002. In that application, the Applicant complained that he had suffered similar injury, namely, occupational disease of tennis elbow of left forearm, whilst he was employed by the other respondents on or about 4 July 2001. That application was settled at an earlier time.

5. Rule 17(2) of 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