Lau King Sun v Chec-cwf Joint Venture

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberDCEC238/2002
Subject MatterEmployee"s Compensation Case
DCEC000238/2002 Lau King Sun v. CHEC-CWF Joint Venture

DCEC000238/2002

DCEC238/2002

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 238 OF 2002

____________________

BETWEEN
Lau King-sun Applicant
AND
CHEC-CWF Joint Venture Respondent

____________________

Coram: Deputy Judge C Wong

Date: 16 July 2002

_____________

R U L I N G

_____________

1. This is the applicant's application under section 10(5) to continue periodical payments beyond the statutory 24 months.

2. Judgment on liability has been entered by consent in favour of the applicant. This is the adjourned hearing of the application under section 10(5).

3. This case arose out of an accident dated 31 May 2000. At approximately 3.00 pm in a construction site where the applicant was employed as a construction site worker foreman, he slipped and fell from a height of 3 metres. He landed on the surface of a pile of iron bars. The place where the applicant slipped and fell was about 1 foot from the edge of the I-beams platform.

4. As stated in the application, the plaintiff's sustained multiple abrasions, head, teeth and back trauma injuries, including injury affecting the lumbar region L4 to L5 and sciatica.

5. Under section 10(5) of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance, "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 payment under this section but shall be deemed to have suffered permanent incapacity and the provisions of section 7 or 9, as the case may be, shall apply to the employee".

6. The applicant applies today asking the court to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant to receive periodical payments beyond 24 months.

7. The issue before me, as set out by Ms Ng for the respondent, is essentially that from the medical reports by the Hospital Authority, there is a case of pre-existing injury as from the MRI examinations there are degenerations to the spine.

8. Ms Ng argues that since there is an issue as to the plaintiff's injury being a result of the accident or due to the degeneration, there is a real issue before the court which ought to be sorted out in trial, and the respondent should not be shut out from defending these issues.

9. I now refer to a letter by the respondent's solicitor setting out the grounds of objection. By a letter dated 11...

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