HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Employee's Compensation Case2000

Tsui Kim-ming v. Charter Form Co.Ltd.

34836-EN-2001-12-13

Tsui Kim-ming v. Charter Form Co.Ltd.

HTML content

DCEC000738/2000

DCEC738/2000

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 738 OF 2000

BETWEEN
Tsui Kim-mingApplicant
AND
Charter Form Company LimitedRespondent

Coram: H H Judge Carlson in Court

Date: 13 December 2001

___________________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________________

1. This is an application for compensation by the Applicant, judgment having been entered against the Respondents on 24 November last year.

2. The claim under section 9 is put forward at $82,224. That is based on average earnings over the period of his employment of $14,275. That comes from the list of earnings which have been provided by the Respondents, multiplied by 96 (that is calculated on the basis that he was 38 years old at the time of the accident) and that is the correct multiplier to take; multiplied by 6 per cent, being the Certificate of Review of Assessment dated 29 December of last year, so $82,224.

3. The section 10 claim is based on the period of sick leave which is supported by medical certificates from 24 September 1998 until 10 December 1998, the multiplicand here being his average earnings, $14,275, multiplied by four-fifths of that, multiplied by the 78 days that he was off work, divided of course by 30, producing a figure of $29,692.

4. Section 10A for medical expenses, supported by the proper fee notes, $2,284, producing a total of $114,200, less $27,184 which he has already been paid by the Respondents.

5. That gives a total of $87,016. So that is the assessment of compensation which I now award the Applicant to be paid by the Respondents.

6. He is entitled to interest. I start the clock, as it were, from the date of the application itself, which is 8 August of last year until today, being the date of judgment, at half the judgment rate and thereafter until payment at the judgment rate itself.

7. There will also, inevitably, have to be an order for costs in respect of this assessment in favour of the Applicant, together with Legal Aid taxation.

Ian Carlson
District Court Judge

Representation:

Present: Ms Joereen Kong, of Legal Aid Department, for the Applicant

Respondent in person