Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Lee Sau Fat v F. H. Security Services Co Ltd

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date21 December 2010
CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberDCPI1471/2008
Subject MatterPersonal Injuries Action
DCPI1471B/2008 LEE SAU FAT v. F. H. SECURITY SERVICES CO LTD

DCPI 1471/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 1471 OF 2008

____________

BETWEEN

LEE SAU FAT Plaintiff
and
F. H. SECURITY SERVICES COMPANY LIMITED Defendant

____________

DCEC 120/2007

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION CASE NO. 120 OF 2007

____________

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BETWEEN

LEE SAU FAT Applicant
and
F. H. SECURITY SERVICES COMPANY LIMITED Respondent

____________

Coram : Her Honour Judge Anthea Pang

Date of Decision : 21 December 2010

D E C I S I O N

Background

1. The above two cases were consolidated and heard together before me. I gave judgment in favour of the Defendant/Respondent in both actions and I dismissed the Plaintiff/Applicant’s claims for damages for personal injuries and for employees’ compensation.

2. At the time when I handed down my judgment, I made an order nisi that costs be paid by the Plaintiff/Applicant to the Defendant/Respondent, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel. Subsequently, the Defendant/Respondent took out two summonses dated 5 July 2010 to have the costs order nisi varied and to have the costs taxed on an indemnity, instead of party to party, basis. In respect of the employees’ compensation action, application is also made for enhanced interest under O.22, r.23 of the Rules of the District Court.

3. By consent, the summonses were dealt with by way of written submissions, the last of which reached this court on 20 September 2010.

4. This is my decision on the applications.

Findings At Trial

5. The central issue at trial was whether, as alleged by Madam Lee (the Plaintiff/Applicant), an accident happened to her while she was on duty on 17 March 2006 (referred to as the “3rd accident” at trial). When dismissing the claims of Madam Lee, I found that, at the most, a “near-fall” incident might have happened on that day. However, this “near-fall” incident, if it had happened, did not cause Madam Lee to sustain any injuries and did not aggravate any of her then existing injuries. Insofar as the 3rd accident is concerned, I am of the view that it did not happen as alleged.

6. When arriving at the above conclusions, I found that :

(a) it is inconceivable that Madam Lee would continue to perform her patrolling work and not to seek assistance straight away if she had the alleged accident on that day;

(b) if Madam Lee had the alleged accident and if, as she claimed, she had mentioned that to her attending doctors on 18 March 2006 immediately after it had happened and, thereafter, on each and every occasion when she sought medical treatment, there should not have been a complete absence, for a period of almost one year, of any reference to the accident in the medical notes whereas the injuries she sustained during an earlier accident (referred to as the “2nd accident” at trial) were repeatedly recorded;

(c) if the accident had indeed happened, such should have been reported to the Labour Department in June 2006 when Madam Lee made reports about the other accidents, including the 2nd accident, which she claimed happened at work. However, Madam Lee did not do so and she only reported the 3rd accident in October 2006; and

(d) the written report about the 3rd...

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