HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Personal Injuries Action1995

LAI CHI PON v. TOTO STEEL & IRON WORKS LTD. and Others

Files (3)

36906-EN-1997-07-18

LAI CHI PON v. TOTO STEEL & IRON WORKS LTD AND OTHERS

HTML content

1995, No.PI 1149

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES LIST

______________

BETWEEN
LAI CHI PONPlaintiff
AND
TOTO STEEL & IRON WORKS LTD.1st Defendant
INTERNATIONAL BANK OF ASIA INSURANCE CO LTD2nd Defendant
CHEUNG CHIU TAI
appointed to represent the estate of YEUNG HOU deceased
3rd Defendant

______________

Coram: Hon Cheung J. in Court

Date of hearing: 16 June 1997

Date of Judgment: 18 July 1997

________________________________________________

JUDGMENT ON DAMAGE

_________________________________________________

 

Injuries

1. This is an assessment of damage pursuant to the judgment I gave on 12th March 1997 for the Plaintiff against the 3rd Defendant.

2. As a result of the industrial accident on 20th January 1997, the Plaintiff lost consciousness and felt severe pain in his back. He could not move his legs and did not have any feeling in the lower part of his body. He was found to have a compressed fracture of his vertebra at T11 and T12. Twenty-four days after the accident, operation was performed on his spine. Shortly after this operation the condition of his legs improved and he regained some limited sensation and movement of his lower limbs.

3. The Plaintiff is now an incomplete paraplegic. He was hospitalised for 27 months, thereafter he received follow-up treatment from a private doctor and from the MacLehose Medical Rehabilitation Centre.

Permanent disabilities

a) Limited movement of his lower limbs

i) He is unable to stand without support.

ii) He can only walk with crutches and an ankle-foot orthosis.

iii) He can only walk awkwardly and clumsily.

iv) He cannot run or move or turn quickly.

v) He is not able to walk on any slopes and has great difficulties climbing stairs.

vi) He cannot carry anything heavy when using crutches, other than a small light bag hanging from the crutches.

vii) He is unable to sit for more than an hour, otherwise he will suffer unbearable pain in his back.

viii) The crutches have caused blisters on his palms. His ankle-foot orthosis has also caused blisters on his feet. He needs ointment to clean the wounds on his feet.

b) Reduced sensation from his abdomen downwards

i) Generally the Plaintiff has no sensation below the knee. The sensation in his thighs is limited.

ii) He gets constant pain, discomfort and paraesthesia in both legs, above the knees. This pain has greatly interfered with his daily activities and he cannot work when he is in constant pain.

iii) He is unable to feel temperatures.

iv) When he is sleeping or sitting, he gets spasms in both legs. The spasms occur about 2-3 times per week. The spasms are worse when he is sitting, and he cannot predict when they will occur. They will last for about 15 minutes. They are not painful, as he has no feeling in his lower legs but they are embarrassing.

c) Double Incontinence

i) He still suffers from bladder problems. He has partial bladder sensation with reflex emptying and a tendency to retention.

ii) He empties his bladder by straining and tapping on the abdomen.

iii) He still wets himself twice a week. He needs to wear diapers at night. After drinking something, he needs to go to the toilet after about 30 minutes. When he goes out, he tries to avoid drinking anything.

iv) He moves his bowel every 2 to 3 days and requires suppositories.

v) He is still occasionally incontinent.

d) Sexual dysfunction

i) His sexual ability is greatly impaired.

ii) He fails 70% of his attempts to have sexual intercourse with his wife which causes him much distress.

iii) Although he was able to bear a child after the accident, he has not had sexual intercourse with his wife for over 1½ years now.

iv) He has lost much if not all of his sexual drive and feels very embarrassed at not being able to perform satisfactorily. The sexual dysfunction is psychological in nature.

e) Psychiatric illness

i) He is suffering from Adjustment Disorder.

ii) He is depressed and worried about his future. He has found it hard to adjust to his disabilities and how to relate to other people, especially his wife.

iii) His self-esteem is low. He lacks interest in most activities and feels pessimistic and incapable to cope.

Prognosis of Plaintiff's condition

1. The Plaintiff's paraplegia and related disabilities are permanent and will not improve.

2. There is a chance of the Plaintiff developing post-traumatic syringomyelia. This is a condition in which there is necrosis of the central region of the spinal cord at or near the site of the original injury. This condition causes increasing and further weakness and sensory disturbance.

3. The Plaintiff is also prone to future complications such as pressure sores and urinary tract infection. He has a unstable neurogenic bladder which empties poorly.

4. It is likely that the Plaintiff's physical condition will deteriorate at a later date with age or sickness. It is highly likely that he would be confined to a wheelchair in the future. It is estimated that he will be wheelchair bound by the age of 45.

5. He is prone to the development of more serious depressive disorders particularly if he comes under stress.

6. The life expectancy of the Plaintiff should be about 43 years from the time of his injury. However, as stated by Dr Yu Yuk Ling and Dr David Lee his life expectancy would probably be longer and near that for the normal male population if he keeps on enjoying good health, has an acceptable residence and can travel by himself.

Pain, suffering and loss of amenities

4. In my view the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff are within the category of disaster. I have fully set out his permanent disabilities and I have also considered the following cases involving paraplegic or tetraplegic in arriving at this conclusion :

Li Tin Yau v. Leung Chi Tai, H.C.A. No.7524 of 1985
(Master O'Donnell 3rd February 1989)

Leung Sai Kui v. F. Zimmern, H.C.A. No.1151 of 1985
(Master Suttill 11th July 1986)

Ng Kwok Wing v. Lau Ping Kwan & Others PI 1013 of 1995
(My decision dated 23rd May 1996)

Choi Mei Ho v. Chung Chiu Ying & Others PI 784 of 1995
(Leong J. 20th March 1997)

The award for pain suffering and loss of amenities is $1.5 million.

Past loss of earnings

5. At the time of the accident the Plaintiff was employed by the 3rd Defendant as a plastering worker. He worked from 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. for 6 days per week. The Plaintiff's basic wage was $200 a day. His average basic monthly wage was $5,200 (ie 200 x 6 x 52 ÷ 12). According to the Form 2 completed by 1st Defendant, the Plaintiff's monthly salary at the time of accident was $3,000 a month. This figure was obviously wrong.

6. In addition, he was required to work overtime, ie overnight or on holidays. If he worked from 6.00 p.m. - 12.00 a.m., he would get 1 day pay. If he continued to work to 2.00 a.m., he would then get another 1 day pay. On average, he worked 10 hours overtime per month. He was also provided with free lunch and afternoon tea. In 1987, a lunch cost about $15 - $16 and tea about $7 - $8. Sometimes, he was given travel allowance as well.

7. I accept his monthly salary was about $7,000 including overtime, meal and travel allowances. He was paid in cash and did not keep any record of the payment.

8. But for the accident, the Plaintiff would have continued to work as a plasterer and would now be earning at least $20,000 as at the time of assessment. This figure is consistent with the statistics. According to the Table issued by Construction Industry Union and the statistics complied by the Wages and Labour Costs Statistics Section, Census and Statistics Department, the daily pay of a plasterer from 1987 to 1997 was as follows :

 Year

Daily Wage

Monthly Wage
(26 days a month)
a)19872707,020
b)19883208,320
c)19893709,620
d)199042010,920
e)199147012,220
f)199252013,520
g)199357014,820
h)199462016,120
i)199566017,160
j)1996 (Dec)806.820,977
k)1997 (Jan)829.821,575

The median of the Plaintiff's pre-trial loss of earnings is $13,500 per month i.e. (7,000 + 20,000) ÷ 2. The Plaintiff's pre-trial loss of earnings is $1,687,500 (13,500 x 125 months). Tax is irrelevant given the substantial allowances available to married persons.

Sub-contractor

9. It was argued by Mr Ozorio Q.C. on behalf of the Plaintiff that but for the accident, he would have commenced work as a sub-contractor by the age of about 35 and that he would have earned an extra $10,000 per month. A claim of $470,000 was made. I have no doubt that the Plaintiff was a hardworking person, but he might or might not become a sub-contractor in his trade. I really do not wish to go into speculations and I would decline to give an additional award for his earnings as a sub-contractor.

Loss of future earnings

10. The Plaintiff was born on 13th July 1958 and is 38 at the time of the assessment. The life expectancy of the Plaintiff is estimated at about 43 years from the time of the injury to the age of 71. In Chan Pui Ki v. Leung On Civ.App.No.263 of 1995, the Court of Appeal regarded 20 years as the maximum conventional multiplier. In the present case, I would adopt a multiplier of 12 for loss of future earnings.

Total loss of earning capacity

11. The Plaintiff suffers a total loss of his earning capacity due to :

a) poor walking stability and agility;

b) poor capability and endurance for standing;

c) slightly reduced endurance of continuous prolonged sitting; in fact, it is not suitable for him to sit too long for he is prone to pressure sores or other complications;

d) poor capability for lifting and carrying;

e) poor capability for pushing and pulling;

f) poor capability for stooping;

g) inability to crouch;

h) inability to climb a ladder;

i) reduction of efficiency of his manual skills if he was required to stand;

j) exposure to additional hazard when emergency exit may be life-saving;

k) difficulty working in an environment where there were architectural barriers;

l) difficulty with transportation;

m) occasional double incontinence which might cause great embarrassment and inconvenience;

n) frequent need to go to the toilet to empty his bladder.

12. It has been suggested by the experts that the Plaintiff might be able to take up some light sedentary work, for example, packer, assembler, cashier or telephone operator. The reality of the situation is that the Plaintiff had failed to obtain gainful employment since the accident despite his efforts. He had registered with the Selective Placement Unit of the Labour Department but was not employed by anyone. With the Plaintiff's conditions and his low educational background, the Plaintiff is not competitive at all in the labour market. In real terms, it is not likely that he will get any gainful employment in the future.

13. I am satisfied that, but for the accident, the Plaintiff would have continued to work as a plasterer and earned $20,000 a month at the time of the accident. His future loss of earnings is therefore $20,000 x 12 x 12 = $2,880,000.

Cost of future nursing and medical care

14. I will adopt a multiplier of 15 for future expenses since such expenses would have to be incurred beyond his retirement age.

15. It is clear from Dr Chung See Yuen's report that the Plaintiff is suffering from an adjustment disorder which includes the following symptoms :

a) depressed mood;

b) low self-esteem;

c) lack of interest in activities;

d) pessimistic feeling;

e) feelings of inability to cope.

16. I have no doubt that he will benefit from a course of individual psychotherapy to help him to deal with his emotional disturbances. In addition he and his wife should receive sex therapy to enable them to achieve better sexual functioning. The cost of the psychiatric treatment is $50,000 which consists of psychotherapy once every two weeks for ten sessions and sex therapy for ten sessions.

Occupational therapy

17. Occupational therapy is still required :

a) to improve the active control of his movements;

b) to maintain passive range of movement and to correct and prevent joint contracture of his lower limbs;

c) to provide training in all the activities of daily living;

d) to recommend home adaptation and rehabilitative equipment to improve his level of functioning and independence;

e) to educate his family members and the carers.

It is recommended by Ms Alice Tsang, occupational therapist, that the therapy would be three times a week for the first six months at $800 per session, thereafter once a week for the next six months and once every two weeks for the next six months. After the 18 months treatment, the therapy will take place once a month plus four extra sessions a year. The cost for the first 18 months would be as follows : $62,400, $20,800, $10,400 making a total of $93,600.

18. The cost for the subsequent treatments will be $12,800 x 15 = $192,000. The total cost is $285,600.

Physiotherapy

19. It is apparent from Ms Alice Tsang's and Mr David Siu's report, that the Plaintiff requires physiotherapy because :

a) he cannot sit for more than an hour without causing unbearable pain in his back;

b) muscles of his hips and knees require regular exercise to maintain the residual strength, especially when he gets older;

c) the muscles of his lower limbs should be further strengthened and his balance reaction should be improved to alleviate the extra burden exerted on his upper limbs;

d) the contracture of his Achilles' tendons requires treatment to prevent deterioration. Otherwise, his ability to walk would be interfered with and pressure sores might develop in his feet;

e) the passive range of motion of his limbs should be improved and maintained.

The cost of the treatment is three times a week for the first six months at $400 per session at $31,200, thereafter once a week for the next six months at $10,400 and thereafter once every two weeks for the next six months at $5,200. After the 18 months treatment, the therapy will take place once a month plus four extra sessions a year. The cost would be $6,400 x 15 = $96,000. The total cost would be $142,800.

Medical treatment, hospitalisation and nursing care

20. It is clear from Dr Yu and others' reports that the Plaintiff is prone to develop complications such as pressure sores and urinary tract infections. He has an unstable neurogenic bladder that empties poorly. He therefore needs regular check-up and supervision, especially as to his renal and urinary status.

21. Costs for medical treatment once every three months is at $600 per visit : $2,400 x 15 = $36,000. There should be annual check-up and treatment in case of complication at $4,000 per treatment. Costs is $4,000 x 15 = $60,000. I accept the Plaintiff's conditions are such that private treatment instead of treatment in public hospitals should be made available to him to avoid prolonged waiting and long queues at public hospitals.

22. I accept that nursing care is required when his mobility is reduced in the future. As nursing care would not be required immediately, I will use a multiplier of 7½. According to Ms Tsang, the cost of the nursing fee of $390 per hour and 30 sessions per year are required. The total costs would be $11,700 x 7½ = $87,750.

23. The total under this head is $183,750.

Full-time helper

24. After the accident the Plaintiff's wife and his father looked after the Plaintiff. They are now not able to take care of the Plaintiff particularly that the Plaintiff's father's health is deteriorating. The daughter who had at one time lived in China so that she might be taken care of by the grandparents had returned to Hong Kong which requires the attention of the wife. I am satisfied that a full-time helper is required to help the wife with the ordinary household chores and to accompany the Plaintiff when he goes out. Mr Ozorio informed the court that it would be more expensive to hire a part-time worker than a full-time domestic helper.

Full-time Filipino domestic helper

   (HK$)    (MULTIPLIER) (HK$)
Initial handling cost by agency at $4,000 per contract4,000 

 4,000
Basic monthly salary at $3,860 per month46,320x15=694,800
Relief staff for home leave at $2,100 per year, based on 1 home leave of 2 weeks per 2 years, relief staff for 7 days @$300/full day2,100x15=31,500
Traveling fee for home leave, based on 1 home leave per 2 years, @$1,500750x15=11,250
Misc. costs incl. Insurance, renewal of contract & immigration, etc at about $3,500 per annum3,500x15=52,500
     $794,050

The total under this head is $794,050.

The total costs for future nursing, medical care and helper is $1,456,200.

Future transport cost

25. It is obvious that the Plaintiff has great difficulties using public transport and moving around in crowded places because of his disabilities. The Plaintiff had since the accident obtained a disabled driver licence. It was urged upon me that award should be given to the Plaintiff to purchase a car so that he could lead a more independent life. Although he had passed the driving licence test, the Plaintiff had not driven a car since the accident. I remain unconvinced about his ability to drive a car because of his disabilities, particularly in the congested traffic conditions of Hong Kong. I will, therefore, not make an award for the purchase of car for the Plaintiff but instead I will give an allowance for future transportation at $700 per week or $36,400 per year x 15 = $546,000.

Costs of special future needs and equipment

Lightweight wheelchair and accessories

26. A manual lightweight wheelchair should be provided for long distance travel because it is strenuous for the Plaintiff to walk on elbow crutches and with the ankle orthosis which have already caused extensive blisters on his palms and ankles.

27. I t is highly likely that the Plaintiff would be confined to wheelchair in the future. It is estimated that he would be wheelchair-bound by the age of 45.

1.Lightweight wheelchair with replacement every 6 years$13,500 x 2.5 =$33,750
2.Maintenance of wheelchair at 30% of costs$4,050 x 2.5  =$10,125
   $43,875

28. An anti-decubitus mattress is necessary to prevent pressure sores upon prolonged sitting on a wheelchair or elsewhere.

Anti-decubitus cushion with replacement every 3 years$3,500 x 5 = $17,500

29. A wheelchair lap board is necessary for activity without necessarily approaching the need for an actual table.

Wheelchair lap board every 2 years$500 x 7.5 = $3,750

30. A wheelchair mitt is required to protect his hand while propelling the wheelchair.

Wheelchair mitt with replacement every 1 year$300 x 15 = $4,500

Total : $69,625

Mobility aids and equipment

31. The Plaintiff cannot walk without the aid of an elbow crutch and an ankle foot orthosis. In view of the allowance of the wheelchair, I will give an award of $5,000 under this head.

32. The Plaintiff needs a foot drop splint to position his ankles in a functional position when he is at rest.

Foot-drop Splint with replacement every 2 years$1,500 x 7.5 = $11,250

33. The heel protector is to prevent excessive pressure at his heels during sleep.

Heel protector$350 x 15 = $5,250

34. A light weight reacher is required for retrieval of light items out of his reach.

Light-weight reacher every 2 years$400 x 7.5 = $3,000

Total : $24,500

Adaptation of bathroom

35. A bath seat is required for stability and safety in bathing.

Bath Seat every 2 years$900 x 7.5 = $6,750

36. A bath trolley with tub and drain hose is required to assist the attendant and to maximise his safety and comfort.

1.Bath trolley with tub and drain hose with replacement every 5 years$30,000 x 3 =$90,000
2.Maintenance of bath trolley at 30% of cost$9,000 x 3 =$27,000
   $117,000

Total : $123,750

Special bed and accessories

37. The Plaintiff will need a hospital type of bed with electronic control for easy adjustment for various heights and positions to allow for improved ease of caring. This would be necessary when the Plaintiff's physical deteriorates when he gets older and more dependent.

1.Hospital bed with electronic control for adjustment of positions with replacement every 5 years$35,000 x 3 =$105,000
2.Maintenance of special bed at 30% of cost$10,500 x 3 =$31,500
   $136,500

38. An anti-decubitus mattress will be necessary to prevent pressure sores.

Anti-decubitus mattress with replacement every 4 years

$3,300 x 3.75 = $12,375

Total : $148,875

Medical consummables

39. The Plaintiff is occasionally incontinent and will need diapers and PVC mattress cover for protection of his bed linen. He will also require laxatives and KY jelly for bowel movements. He needs antiseptic disinfectant to prevent infections caused by his incontinence. He needs skin ointment for his blisters on the palms and the ankles caused by the crutches and ankle foot orthosis. He will need Duoderm or other dressing because he will be prone to pressure sores.

1.4 Adult diapers every day at @$4.60$6,716 x 15 =$100,740
2.2 PVC Mattress covers every year @$130$260 x 15 =$3,9003
3.3 bottles of laxatives (Metamucil or Senkot) every month at @$80$2,880 x 15 =$43,200
4.1 tube of KY Jelly every month at $20 each$240 x 15 =$3,600
5.Cost of Antiseptic disinfectant at $80 per month$960 x 15 =$14,400
6.4 tubes of skin ointment per month at @$25$1,200 x 15 =$18,000
7.Cost of Duoderm or other dressing for pressure sores every year$1,500 x 15 =$22,500
Total :$206,340

Non-medical equipment for comfort and quality of life

40. The Plaintiff should be provided with air conditioning and heater with remote control to maintain a constant room temperature for comfort and reduction in sweating in summer. This would reduce the occurrence of pressure sores. In winter, the Plaintiff cannot move around easily to keep warm and thus require a heater as well.

1.Air conditioning/heater with remote control with replacement every 5 years$4,500 x 3 =

$13,500

2.Maintenance of air-conditioner at 30% of cost$1,350 x 3 =

$4,050

$17,550

41. Because of his restricted mobility, the Plaintiff needs a telephone with wireless unit for communication with others as this may prove essential in a life-threatening emergency when the Plaintiff is alone.

Telephone with widens unit with replacement every 4 years$1,600 x 3.75 = $6,000

Total : $23,550

Social activities

42. I accept that it would be beneficial to the Plaintiff if he is given allowance for socialisation activities, especially with other handicapped persons. He should also be accompanied by his attendant when he goes out to these activities. The Plaintiff has taken part and wishes to continue to take part in events organised by disabled societies and intends to participate in wheelchair basketball in future. He would also like to pursue further education in future.

Allowance of socialisation activities estimated at $3,000 per year$3,000 x 15 = $45,000

Total : $45,000

Total for costs of special future needs and equipment : $641,640.

Future recurring miscellaneous costs

43. Because of the Plaintiff's propensity to have pressure sores or other illnesses and the fact that he spends most of his time at home, he will incur extra costs for electricity for the air-conditioning and heater.

Additional electricity expenses for extra use of air-conditioning
and heater
$4,800 x 15 = $72,000

44. His incontinence also causes extra costs of washing powder and toilet rolls.

1.Extra costs of washing powder$480 x 15 =$7,200
2.Costs of extra toilet rolls and tissues$528 x 15 =$7,920
   $15,120

Total : $87,120

Alternative accommodation

45. The Plaintiff is now living with his father in a flat at   7/F, Front Portion, 227 Wing Ming Mansion, Lai Chi Kok Road, Kowloon, which is owned by his father. Prior to the accident, he paid his father $1,000 per month as rental. He cannot afford to pay him now.

46. The Plaintiff's present accommodation is inadequate and unsuitable for the following reasons :

a) the flat was built 30 years ago and is not in very good condition;

b) there is only one tiny lift. Although it is quite reliable, it does not operate from time to time;

c) the flat is too small. It is about 400 square feet and has been partitioned into three bedrooms, a living room, kitchen and bathroom. The Plaintiff sleeps alone in a bedroom of about 70 sq ft, his wife sleeps with his daughter, and his father sleeps in another room.

d) The Plaintiff has to be extremely careful when he moves around with his pair of crutches because the living room is very narrow.

e) He may fall and hurt himself. He therefore usually remains seated in the sofa most of the time. It is very uncomfortable for him to have to sit on the sofa all the time because it is facing a wall which is only a few feet away and he has pain when he sits for a long time.

f) The ventilation is very poor because there is no window in the room. He cannot afford an air-conditioner.

g) He finds it very dull and boring to stay at home. There is not much in the way of facilities in his neighbourhood. There is only a park nearby. However, he is afraid to go out during the day. He requires a safer neighbourhood.

h) He spends most of his time watching TV at home. It is put on the left side of the sofa because there is not sufficient space to place it elsewhere. He gets tired easily when he has to turn his head to the left to watch TV.

i) His bedroom is extremely small. The closet has occupied much of the space and it is very inconvenient for him to move around in the bedroom.

j) The washroom is not large enough for him to manoeuvre. The washing machine has taken up most of the space. The floor is very slippery and he has to be extremely careful when he uses the washroom. It is difficult for him to take a shower in such a small space.

47. Ms Alice Tsang suggested that a flat of 80.5m2 (or 866.18ft2) would be sufficient to accommodate the Plaintiff, his wife and his daughter whereas Mr Joseph Kwan suggested 53.5m2 (or 575.66 ft2) and Mr Andrew Kwok suggested 55.76m2 (or 600 ft2).

48. I accept the recommendations made by Ms Alice Tsang because she has taken into account the additional space required for the attendant. In addition, it might not be convenient for the Plaintiff to sleep with his wife in the same bed because of his occasional spasms. It is plainly not desirable for the daughter and the father to share the same room. Moreover, an exclusive toilet for the Plaintiff is required because the Plaintiff would need one hour to sit on the toilet and a lot of time to shower and it would be inconvenient for others to wait.

49. An alternative accommodation in Whampoa Garden has been suggested. I am satisfied that with its recreational facilitates, this is a suitable alternative accommodation for the Plaintiff. I have discussed the costs of alternative accommodation in Ng Kwok Wing. But in this case I would adopt the previous decisions of Leung Sai Kui and Li Tin Yau in which the court allowed the difference in the rental of the two accommodations. In this case, the Plaintiff stated that he would eventually purchase their own property and would pay about $3,000 by way of mortgage repayment. I would adopt the $3,000 as the notional rental which has to be deducted from the current rental of a 860 sq ft flat in Whampoa Garden. The rental is about $25,900 per month. The amount recoverable is ($25,980 - $3,000) x 12 x 15 = $4,136,400.

50. The management fees for the new accommodation is at $760 per month or $9,120 per annum. The amount recoverable would be $9,120 x 15 = $136,800.

51. The rates would be 5.5% of the rental or $17,147 per year. The amount recoverable would be $17,147 x 15 = $257,205.

52. The Plaintiff is seeking expenses relating to removal costs, legal costs for the signing of the tenancy agreement, agency fees at half of the one month's rental and stamp duty. The amount claimed by the Plaintiff after the adjustments on the multiplier is $153,975. This is based on such expenses being incurred every two years. It is speculative to say that the Plaintiff may be required to move his home once every two years when the tenancy agreement expires. I will instead give a lump sum award of $40,000 to cover such expenses.

53. The total under this head is $4,570,405.

Extra costs of holiday

54. Prior to the accident, the Plaintiff visited his mother and sisters in China and Macau two to three times a month. Since the accident, the Plaintiff has not been able to do so. In Choi Mei Ho and in Ng Kwok Wing, it was held that the costs of the Plaintiff taking holiday was not recoverable but the additional costs of hiring a helper during the holiday was a recognised head of damage. I am satisfied that the Plaintiff should take holidays to see his family members. This will reduce his anxieties and frustration. He will need a helper during the visit. As expenses for a full-time domestic helper had already been awarded, I would give an award of $50,000 in relation to extra expenses to be incurred by the helper during the Plaintiff's visits to his family members.

Fund management

55. The Plaintiff has a very low education level. He has no specific plans for investment of any damages he receives and he has no proper knowledge of financial investment. He requires the professional help of a fund manager in this regard.

56. The Court of Appeal in Chan Pui Ki allowed a sum in relation to expenses incurred in the investment of the award in order to achieve the desired return. The amount that was awarded was about 10% of the loss of the future earnings of the Plaintiff. A similar award was made in Choi Mei Ho. I will likewise adopt a 10% for fund management fees in respect of the loss of future earnings of the Plaintiff. Notwithstanding the arguments of Mr Ozorio, I will confine the award of the 10% to this particular item in accordance with the judgment of Chan Pui Ki. The sum recoverable is $288,000.

Special damages

Medical expenses incurred from day of accident to date

57. I am satisfied that the sum of $176,311 was incurred by the Plaintiff by way of medical expenses.

MEDICAL EXPENSES

 

(HK$)

 

1.

37,028St. Paul's Hospital Operation and Treatment by Dr. Harry Fang

2.

5,550St. Paul's Hospital for follow-up treatment ($370 x 15)

3.

12,430Miscellaneous Medical Expenses

4.

8,203Treatment in China

5.

2,600Chinese Medicine

6.

100,500Medical Consummables (eg diapers, laxatives, dressing etc) at $1,000 each month for 100.5 months

7.

10,000Medical equipment (eg crutches, foot splint, etc)

Transport costs

58. During the Plaintiff's stay in the hospital, the Plaintiff's wife and father regularly visited him and brought him food and soup nearly every day. The Plaintiff also incurred traveling expenses when he went for out-patient follow-up treatment. He had no choice but to take a taxi on these occasions as it was dangerous and difficult for him to take public transportation save the MTR when it is not crowded. The total amount is $18,610. This amount is recoverable.

  (HK$)
A.Plaintiff's (27 months in hospital)200
1.To and from Queen Elizabeth Hospital310
2.To and from St. Paul's Hospital2,600
3.To and from Maclehose Medical Rehabilitation Centre2,100
4.To and from China 
B.Family 
1.To and from Queen Elizabeth Hospital ($29 x 19 days)380
2.To and from St. Paul's Hospital ($20 x 21 days)420
3.To and from Maclehose Medical Rehabilitation Centre ($30 x 14 months) Daily12,600
 Total:18,610

Tonic food

59. I am satisfied that the sum of $10,000 had been reasonably incurred by the Plaintiff in respect of tonic food.

Care and attention

60. As at the time of accident, the Plaintiff's wife was working as a sewing worker earning about $3,620 per month. In 1987, the Plaintiff's father was working for the Owners' Incorporation of Wah Yick Mansion earning about $1,000 a month. As a result of the Plaintiff's accident, the Plaintiff's wife did not work for six weeks, from 22nd January 1987 to 3rd March 1987, in order to take care of the Plaintiff. In addition, the Plaintiff's father, Mr Lai Yeung, resigned from his work to take care of the Plaintiff from January 1987. After the Plaintiff's discharge from the hospital in April 1989, he was taken care of by his father and wife. From September 1994 onwards, the Plaintiff's wife gave up her job and spent all her time caring for the Plaintiff, their daughter who returned to Hong Kong in September 1994 and the Plaintiff's father.

61. I am satisfied that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages in respect of the service voluntarily rendered by his father and his wife. These services were necessitated by the 3rd Defendant's negligence. The total amount recoverable is $396,281.

  (HK$)
1.From January 1987 to March 1987 (ie 6 weeks) of the Wife at $3,620 per month6,281
2.From discharge from hospital, ie May 1989 to August 1994 of the Father and Wife at median of $3,000 per month189,000
3.From September 1994 to June 1997 of the Wife at a median of $6,000 per month201,000
 Total:396,281

Conclusion

62. The damage assessed is $14,308,067 and there shall be judgment for the Plaintiff accordingly.

SUMMARY

  (HK$)
1.Pain, suffering and loss of amenities1,500,000
2.Past loss of earnings1,687,500
3.Future loss of earnings2,880,000
4.Cost of future nursing, medical care and helper1,456,200
5.Future transport costs546,000
6.Costs of special future needs and equipment641,640
7.Future recurring miscellaneous costs87,120
8.Removal, adaptation & accommodation expenses4,570,405
9.Extra costs of holidays50,000
10.Fund management fees on future earning288,000
11.Past medical expenses incurred from accident to date176,311
12.Past transport costs18,610
13.Tonic food10,000
14.Voluntary care and attention396,281
  14,308,067

63. In addition the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on the past pecuniary losses, namely the past loss of earnings, past medical expenses, past transport costs, tonic food, voluntary care and attention at 5.75% per annum from date of accident to the date of the judgment on damage. Interest on PSLA is 2% p.a. from date of writ to judgment. The Plaintiff is also entitled to the costs nisi of the assessment together with certificate for two counsel.

(P. Cheung)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr Michael Ozorio, S.C., and Mr Victor Gidwani, inst'd by M/s Hoosenally & Neo, for the Plaintiff.

3rd Defendant, absent

31664-EN-1997-03-12

LAI CHI PON v. TOTO STEEL & IRON WORKS LTD. and Others

HTML content

HCPI001149A/1995

1995, No. P.I.1149

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

______________

BETWEEN
LAI CHI PONPlaintiff
AND
TOTO STEEL & IRON WORKS LTD.1st Defendant
INTERNATIONAL BANK OF ASIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.2nd Defendant
YEUNG HOU3rd Defendant

______________

 

Coram: Hon Mr Justice Cheung in Court

Date of hearing: 5 March 1997

Date of handing down judgment: 12 March 1997

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

 

Facts

1. This is a trial on liability. The Plaintiff was the employee of the 3rd Defendant who was the sub-contractor of the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant was the principal contractor of a work site ("the work site") in Ocean Terminal, Kowloon, Hong Kong. The work site was a shop under decoration.

2. On 20th January 1987, the Plaintiff was instructed to plaster the outside of a fire barrier. The fire barrier consisted of fibre boards fixed to a steel frame. The fire barrier was constructed vertically above the frontage of the shop and facing the pedestrian mall. To gain access to the fire barrier, the Plaintiff had to erect his own scaffold and working platform using materials available at the site. At the time of the accident, the shop front had not been installed with glass panels. Wooden hoarding was built around the exterior of the shop and the workers engaged in the decoration work had to work inside the hoarding. The hoarding was made from plaster boards which were nailed to wooden beams secured to the floor. The hoarding was not secured to anything at the top. The distance between the hoarding and the bottom railing of the glass panels at the shop front was about 1'5". The platform was assembled from two 'A' shaped metal ladders, each about 7 or 8 feet high. These were placed at right angles to the hoarding. On the top of each ladder a wooden plank was placed, with one end resting on the ladder and the other on the top of the hoarding. The planks were tied to the ladder using wire string. The planks were not secured to the top of the hoarding. Each of the planks were 4 inches wide and 4-5 feet long and 2 inches thick. Across the top of these two planks another wooden plank was placed, which was to be the working platform. This plank was of similar size to the other two planks, and overlapped them. All the planks were nailed together and the top of the hoarding was about 2-3 inches above the top of the two ladders so there was a slight slope. The floor of the shop had not yet been concreted or plastered. It was quite rough and the Plaintiff used a hammer to level the area where the legs of the two ladders rested. However, despite this, the ladders still wobbled slightly.

3. The Plaintiff who built this platform with another co-worker were not supervised in the building of the platform. They were not told by the Defendants to do it any other way, nor were they given anything else to use. The Plaintiff had never assembled such a platform before and he made it up as best as he could to suit the circumstances and from what was available at this construction site. The Plaintiff could not have the ladders placed between the hoarding and the bottom railing due to the narrow space.

4. While the Plaintiff was plastering, the ladders toppled backwards and he fell down and landed on the ground. His back hit against some pieces of metal which were lying around on the ground and he sustained serious injuries.

Employer's duty

5. The 3rd Defendant, as the employer of the Plaintiff, was required to provide, inter alia, a safe system of work, effective supervision and a safe place of work: Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co. v. English [1938] AC 57. The duty of care is personal and non-delegable. InGeneral Cleaning Contractors Ltd. v Christmas [1953] AC 180, Lord Reid said at 194:

"It is the duty of the employer to consider the situation, to devise a suitable system, to instruct his men what they must do and supply any implements that may be required ... No doubt he cannot be certain that his men will do as they are told when they are working alone. But if he does all that is reasonable to ensure that his safety system is operated he will have done what is bound to do."

6. An employer cannot expect his workmen to lay down and operate a system for themselves. Lord Oaskey said in General Cleaning Contractors Ltd. v. Christmas [1953] AC 180, 190:

"Workmen are not in the position of employers. Their duties are not performed in the calm atmosphere of a boardroom with the advice of experts. They have to make their decisions on narrow window sills and other places of danger, and in circumstances in which the dangers are obscured by repetition."

Unsafe system of work

7. It is clear that the makeshift scaffold and working platform were unsuitable and unsafe for working at height. Dr Jurfi, a safety expert, stated that the safe system of carrying out the work of plastering the fibre boards of the fire barrier would be any one of the following :

i. Plaster the fibre boards on the ground and then install them in position on the steel framework; or

ii. Move the timber hoarding outwards to provide sufficient space for the steel ladder and work from the ladder. The ladder in this case should be at least 4.5m (14 ft. 9 ins.) high; or

iii. Erect a tubular steel or bamboo scaffold and working platform near the timber hoarding and work from the top of the working platform.

8. As to these recommendations it should be noted that it was the usual practice to plaster the boards after they had been fixed in position otherwise when they were put in position some of the plasters might be knocked off. The timber hoarding was erected by the main contractor at the work site and it would not be reasonably practicable to have it removed. Furthermore, the hoarding was required to protect the pedestrians in the shopping mall.

9. The construction of a tubular steel or bamboo scaffolding and working platform near the hoarding board would have been the safest and most obvious system of work, but the Plaintiff was never provided with the necessary materials nor instructed to construct such a platform. Furthermore, the Defendants should ensure that the makeshift scaffold constructed by the Plaintiff should be securely fastened by instructing a co-worker to hold onto the ladders. This was not done because there was no worker available at that time.

10. The 3rd Defendant failed to provide a system of work to the Plaintiff. He could not rely on the skill and experience of the Plaintiff so as to discharge his duty of care. By leaving the construction of the working platform to the Plaintiff, the 3rd Defendant was in breach of his duty of care to the Plaintiff as an employer.

Liability of the 1st Defendant

11. The 1st Defendant is the principal constructor of the work site. The inadequacy of the scaffold and the working platform was or ought to have been obvious to the 1st Defendant or its foreman.

Breach of statutory obligations

12. Both the 1st and 3rd Defendants were in breach of the Construction Site (Safety) Regulations namely:

"iii. Section 38B

Failed to provide, place and keep in position for use and properly maintained either scaffolds or, ladders or other means of support, all of which shall be sufficient, strong and suitable for the purpose."

iv. Section 38C

Failed to ensure that the scaffold was erected under the immediate supervision of a competent person and by competent workmen possessing adequate experience of such work.

v. Section 38D. (1) (a).

Failed to ensure that every scaffold provided on the construction site and every part thereof was of good construction, made of strong and sound materials, and free from patent defects.

vi. Section 38D. (2)

Failed to ensure that the scaffold was kept so fixed, secured or placed in position as to prevent accidental displacement."

Defendants liable

13. I find that liability has been established against the Defendants.

Contributory negligence

14. The Defendants bear the burden of proving contributory negligence of the Plaintiff. Since they have not contested the hearing, this is no longer a live issue. In any event, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff was not guilty of any contributory negligence because the Defendants never provided the Plaintiff with any suitable working platform and thus requiring the Plaintiff to improvise an unsafe working platform. In Machray v Stewarts and Lloyds Ltd [1964] 3 All ER 716, 721E where McNair J. Stated :

"... here I am dealing with a man who is skilled in this kind of operation, a man who, by his own admission, knows the right way to do the work and who would not expect in this rigging operation to be told by his charge-hand how to do the work. Nevertheless, he does use a method which, as I put to him, must have been plainly a method which, if not palpably or obviously dangerous, was quite obviously less safe than the method which he would have preferred to use. On the other hand, when I find a workman, an employed man, adopting a course of conduct not for the sake of saving himself trouble but in order to get on with his employer's business, and I find that he has been prevented from doing the work in the way in which he would have preferred to do by the employer's breach in not providing him with the proper tackle, I am very slow to put any blame on him and I do not feel that, although the dangers of what I have called the make-shift arrangement become very apparent ... they were or ought to have been so apparent to the skilled rigger at the time as to necessitate that I should visit him with any responsibility for the accident. ... Accordingly, in my judgment, the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing a 100% liability."

This case was applied in Pilling v Matto (1973) C.A. 99, digested at U11, p.136 of Bingham's Negligence Cases (4th ed).

Conclusion

15. Accordingly there shall be judgment for the Plaintiff on liability against the 1st and 3rd Defendants. The Plaintiff is entitled to costs nisi of the action in respect of liability.

Employees' Compensation Assistance Fund Board

16. At my request, the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board ("the Board") attended court and explained its position in relation to the present case. The courtesy of the Board is appreciated. I made the request in order to ascertain the position of the Board since the outcome of the case would have a effect on the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund ("the Fund") administered by the Board. The 1st Defendant was insured, but its insurer, the 2nd Defendant, is repudiating liability under the insurance policy. The 1st Defendant is apparently no longer trading. The 3rd Defendant, who I find to be the true employer of the Plaintiff, had no insurance coverage for his employees. As it turned out, the 1st Defendant and the Personal Representative of the 3rd Defendant did not attend the hearing.

Statutory scheme

17. Mr Horace Wong, who appeared on behalf of the Board, informed the Court that the Board had considered the position but decided not to participate in these proceedings. Mr Wong also addressed me on the statutory scheme as provided in the Employees Compensation Assistance Ordinance ("the Ordinance"). Mr Wong submitted that the Board is intended to serve as a last resort for obtaining payment of compensation or damage legally awarded to employees. In the case of applications by employee, only after he has established liability against the employer and has taken all reasonable proceedings to recover from the employer : s.16(1), (2) and (3). In the case of applications by employers, only after the insurer has been shown to be insolvent : s.17 and 18.

18. The Ordinance does not envisage the Board participating in the private litigation of the parties save in the specified circumstances provided under s.25 where there would be a statutory assignment of the rights and liabilities of the employer to the Board. There are no provisions for notice of proceedings to be given to the Board (contrast the position of insurers under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance or the position of Motor Insurance Bureau under the First Fund Agreement). There is no statutory basis for the Board to represent a defendant and conduct the proceedings on his behalf.

19. On the other hand, the Ordinance provides for an independent power on the part of the Board to make inquiries but only after it has received an application under Part IV (s.21(2)). It is not envisaged by the legislation that the Board will actively take part, and in so doing commit the Fund to expenses (sometimes very substantial expenses), in litigation to which it is not a party under s.25.

20. Section 25 is the only statutory provision whereby the Board can take part in proceedings. Section 25 provides that -

"(1) This section applies to any claim against an employer for compensation or damages where-

(a) the employer -

(i) cannot be identified or, if identified, cannot be found;

(ii) is insolvent;

(iii) is dead or in the case of a company, has been dissolved, wound up or struck off the register; or

(iv) for any reason, cannot be served with proceedings; and

(b) no policy of insurance is known to be in force in relation to the employee.

(2) Subject to this section, proceedings for any claim against an employer to which this section applies may issue against the Board as if it were the employer.

(3) Proceedings against the Board under this section shall not issue unless the court is satisfied, on application made on notice to the Board, as to the matters specified in subsection (1)(a) and (b).

(4) Where proceedings are brought against the Board under this section, the rights and liabilities of the employer in respect of the compensation or damages the subject of the proceedings are vested in and transferred to the Board."

21. In Fok Por v. Sum Shuk Ching ECC No.172 of 1991, judgment 25th March 1992, H.H. Judge Downey stated that -

" In my judgment, the general scheme of the Ordinance is that the Board should serve as a last resort for obtaining payment of compensation or damages legally awarded to employees, only after it has been shown that attempts to obtain satisfaction have failed because of the insolvency of the employer or his insurer. Even then, the amount to be paid from the Fund, and whether any payment should be made, are matters left to the discretion of the Board. With the exception of cases which fall within section 25, there is no question of any entitlement on the part of employees to a payment from the Fund."

22. The Board has a quasi-judicial function to perform and is directed to exercise a statutory discretion under s.22 of the Ordinance. The discretion has to be exercised independently and fairly. The Board cannot put itself and cannot be seen to have put itself in any position of conflict of interest. The Board cannot abrogate itself from exercising the statutory discretion. It cannot commit itself to any conduct which would make it impossible for carrying out this aspect of its statutory function properly.

Intervention by the Board

23. Although Mr Wong submitted that the Board is intended to serve as a last resort and that any conflict in its role should be avoided, he also submitted that there is no restriction under the Ordinance for the Board to intervene in actions. Whether there should be an application by the Board to join in the proceedings will depend on whether the Board takes the view that in the proper administration of the Fund, it is necessary for the Board to do so. Such circumstances may arise if it has come to the Board's notice that there is a real likelihood that a judgment may be procured by fraud, or there is a real likelihood of collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant , or where a default judgment is likely to follow if the Board does not intervene. However, the Board is of the view that the mere fact that a potential claim may be made against the Fund or a defendant is not legally represented, does not of itself amount to appropriate circumstances to justify the Board making an application for joinder.

My suggestion

24. I do not wish to express a concluded view whether the Board has the power to intervene on its own accord in proceedings. But on the basis that the Board has the power to intervene, I would respectfully suggest that the Board should take a more active role in intervention by negotiation. A likely award of huge sums together with substantial costs must be one of the situations in which the Board should intervene in a case as soon as possible after it has received notice. Settlement of potential claims by the Board is expressly recognized by s.28 of the Ordinance which provides that-

"28. Payments in anticipation of entitlement

(1) Where it appears to the Board that a person is or might be entitled to apply under this Part for a payment from the Fund, the Board may, in the interests of the protection of the Fund, and on such terms as it sees fit, offer to pay from the Fund to or on behalf of that person an amount in satisfaction of such entitlement.

(2) Any offer by the Board of payment under subsection (1) shall specify the section of this Part pursuant to which the Board considers that the person is or might be so entitled, and any amount liable to be paid following acceptance of such an offer shall, for the purposes of section 26, be regarded as an amount liable to be paid in respect of an application under the section so specified."

25. In the present case, the Plaintiff who is now aged 38, suffers complete paraplegia of both legs as a result of the accident. The Statement of Claim stated that he is assessed to have suffered a permanent disability in the region of 90-100%. This is potentially a huge claim. Ng Kwok Wing v. Lau Ping Kwan & Ors. (P.I. No.1013 of 1995) is another example. In that case, notwithstanding the bankruptcy of the employers and principal contractor, the plaintiff had to incur substantial costs in order to obtain a judgment against the defendants. The judgment was for over $14 million.

26. It is laudable not to deplete the Fund with legal expenses, but in my view the resources of the Fund can in fact be enhanced if the Board can take a more active role and enter into settlement negotiations with the plaintiff. The majority of the personal injury litigation is settled by negotiation. While the plaintiff may not receive the full claim, the benefit is that he will receive an early and final determination of his claim. Most, if not all, of the industrial accident cases are funded by legal aid which is another public body. It must be in the public interest to resolve the claims of employees by agreement instead of incurring substantial legal fees in order to prosecute the cases to the very end so as to satisfy the Board that all remedies had been exhausted.

27. Further, the Board by not taking part in the proceedings, will not be able to advance arguments which may reduce the claim. Mr Wong stated that the Board in exercising its inquiry power may go behind a judgment whether it was a default judgment or one obtained after trial. Again it is not necessary for me to reach a concluded view on this matter. However, with respect to Mr Wong, I fail to see how the Board can go behind a judgment of the Court, particularly when notice of the proceedings had been given but the Board chose not to intervene. In any event, from a practical point of view, I just cannot see how the Board can possibly go behind a judgment when evidence had been called and findings had been made by the Court.

(P. Cheung)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr Michael Ozorio Q.C. and Mr Victor Tulsi Gidwani, inst'd by M/s Hoosenally & Neo, for the Plaintiff

1st Defendant Toto Steel and Iron Works Ltd., absent

Cheung Chiu Tai, the representative of the estate of the 3rd Defendant (deceased), absent

Mr Horace Wong, inst'd by M/s Gallant Y.T. Ho & Co., for The Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board

31665-EN-1997-03-05

LAI CHI PON v. TOTO STEEL & IRON WORKS LTD. and Others

HTML content

HCPI001149B/1995

1995, No.P.I.1149

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

______________

BETWEEN
LAI CHI PONPlaintiff
AND
TOTO STEEL & IRON WORKS LTD.1st Defendant
INTERNATIONAL BANK OF ASIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.2nd Defendant
YEUNG HOU3rd Defendant

______________

 

Coram: Hon Mr Justice Cheung in Court

Date of hearing: 5 March 1997

Date of decision: 5 March 1997

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1. The issue before me is who was the employer of the Plaintiff : whether it was the 1st Defendant or the 3rd Defendant.

2. In his witness statement, the Plaintiff stated that :-

"9. Prior to the accident I always worked for Mr Yeung Hou. I initially started working for him in about 1981. I was introduced to work for him by a mutual friend. When working with Mr Yeung Hou we would do internal renovation work for mainly shops and offices. Between 1981 and 1987 Toto provided us with regular work.

12. It is difficult for me to say who exactly was my employer although I regarded my employer as being Mr Yeung as it was he who paid me and he who often gave me my instructions.

13. In doing construction work of the nature that I was doing at the time of the accident, it was common for there to be a group of workers who would work together as and when required. They would normally be recruited by and work to the direction of one particular person, who could be regarded as the "Gang Leader". I worked in such a group, and my "gang leader" was Mr Yeung Hou.

14. It would be Mr Yeung who found the work for us and told us when and where to do the work. He would often be at the site and sometimes supply plaster and tiles depending on the job. If we were doing a small job then Mr Yeung would only supply us workers. If it were a big job he would also supply tiles and plaster. At the time of the accident we were doing a small job and Mr Yeung was not present all the time. He had other jobs to oversee.

15. We would also always receive our wages direct from Mr Yeung Hou, even when it was clear that we were employed as a group by a Contractor.

16. For simple plastering work there are not many tools involved. Each worker would have their own personal tools and I had my own.

17. If a project required special equipment this would normally be provided by the Contractor at the site.

18. As we were experienced workers we normally did not need much direction as to what work to do, and how to do it. If any directions were given, these would normally be given by the staff (normally a Foreman) of the Contractor at the site. There was a foreman always present at the scene of the accident and he would give and gave orders to us and other workers."

The Plaintiff also claimed that the 3rd Defendant sometimes gave him money at festival times, but he was not sure if this was because of work or friendship.

3. The 3rd Defendant, who maintained that he and the Plaintiff were employees of the 1st Defendant, was dead and the personal representative of the 3rd Defendant had not taken part in the proceedings.

4. The 1st Defendant had chosen not to defend the action.

5. On the evidence given by the Plaintiff which was not challenged in cross-examination and which was further supported by the information provided by the factory inspector that the Plaintiff informed him that the 3rd Defendant was his employer, I have no difficulty in finding that the 3rd Defendant was the employer of the Plaintiff. The matters that need to be considered were the Form 2, i.e. Notice by Employer issued under the Employee's Compensation Ordinance by the 1st Defendant; the Agreement reached between the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff and the employees' compensation proceedings instituted by the Plaintiff against that 1st Defendant which was settled on a without admission of liability basis.

6. It is not necessary for me to make a finding on this issue but the picture that emerged was that the 1st Defendant admitted to be the employer of the Plaintiff to overcome the problem that the 3rd Defendant did not have insurance coverage for his employees. The documents I have referred to obviously contained untrue statements. For example, the Plaintiff was described as a iron worker doing iron work at the time of the accident whereas in fact he was a plasterer doing plastering work and that he was earning $3,000 instead of $5,200. These were done, in any view, in order to bring the Plaintiff under the 1st Defendant's coverage for its three steel iron workers who were described as earning $3,000 in the insurance policy. The Plaintiff denies that he was involved in the collusion and I must say that there is no evidence that he was involved. He stated that he was not sure about the employment relationship.

7. As to the employees' compensation agreement, there was no reason for the 3rd Defendant to pay nearly $40,000 to the Plaintiff if he was not the true employer. Mr Bharwaney also referred to the accounts showing the payment of $734 as casual worker wages by the 1st Defendant to the 3rd Defendant when in fact it was the 3rd Defendant's share of additional payment to the Plaintiff.

8. Likewise, although the Defence by the 1st Defendant admitted that the Plaintiff was its employee, no weight should be attached to the so-called admission. In the light of the evidence, this must be an untrue statement.

9. The complaint letter by the Plaintiff of 10 March 1987, although referring to the 1st Defendant as the employer, gave no indication why the 1st Defendant was his employer. On the contrary, the letter contained information indicating that the 3rd Defendant was the employer.

10. I find on the strength of the evidence before me that the 3rd Defendant was the true employer of the Plaintiff.

(P. Cheung)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr Michael Ozorio Q. C. and Mr Victor Tulsi Gidwani, inst'd by M/s Hoosenally & Neo, for the Plaintiff

1st Defendant Toto Steel and Iron Works Ltd., absent

Mr Mohan Bharwaney, inst'd by M/s Masons & Co., for the 2nd Defendant

Cheung Chiu Tai, the representative of the estate of the 3rd Defendant (deceased), absent