丁紹榮 訴 洗白白專業汽車美容

DCEC1148/2010

香港特別行政區

區域法院

僱員補償訴訟編號2010年第1148號

------------

------------

判決書

1.  申請人丁紹榮先生在本年1月14日發出傳票，向法庭申請延期提出僱員補償的申請。

2.  丁先生指，在2004年10月16日，為答辯人公司（即洗白白專業汽車美容）工作期間，因長時間及重複性站立和蹲下而引致膝頭關節受傷。

3.  根據《僱員補償條例》第14（1）條規定，僱員補償申請必須在導致有關僱員受傷的意外發生時起計二十四個月內提出。丁先生的申請是在2010年9月24日提出，明顯超越時限。根據條例第14（4）條，法院如相信和接納申請人沒有在時限內提出僱員補償申請是有合理辯解，則仍可以受理該申請。所謂合理辯解在Wong Man Tak v Shaws & Sons Limited，[1957] DCLR 85第88至89頁一案有所解釋。今天亦都經法庭翻譯向丁先生解釋該案例提及之法律原則：

“A reasonable excuse, in the ordinary sense of the phrase, means, in relation to a failure by an applicant to make his application for compensation within the prescribed period, that the failure was due to such cause or causes that it ought, as a matter of reason, to be excused.  The phrase thus means the same as the phrase “reasonable cause” which occurred in section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1925 of the United Kingdom.  The numerous authorities relied upon that phrase show that a cause for failure to make a claim within the prescribed period was reasonable, and therefore excused the failure, if it were:- a reasonable belief in the part of the applicant that his injury was trivial; or a mistaken diagnosis of his injury; or a belief in the applicant that a claim for compensation was unnecessary, when the belief had been induced by the employer in such circumstances as reasonably warranted it; or the inability of the applicant to transact business because of his injury. On the other hand, a cause was not reasonable if it were a belief by the applicant that it would be to his interest to defer or not to make a claim. Moreover, an applicant is not excused if he had a reasonable cause which operated only for part of the period: he had to have reasonable causes for the whole period.  Thus, while an applicant might delay making his claim until the last moment of the prescribed period, he was not entitled to be excused if his last moment claim was prevented by a reasonable cause unless he could show that he had good reason for not making his claim before that cause arose.  The principle to be deduced from the foregoing is, I think, that an applicant has a reasonable excuse for not making in application to the court for compensation within the prescribed period if his failure were due to a cause or causes other than unreasonable conduct or an unreasonable decision on his part.”

4.  簡單來說，申請人須令法庭相信及接納未能及時提出僱員補償申請是有合理因由，而並非因本身的不合理行為或決定引致，同時該等合理因由亦必須能夠解釋申請人延誤提出申請的整段時期。

5.  丁先生在他的誓章內解釋，他受傷後到屯門醫院骨科求診，但一直得不到合適檢查及治療，直至2010年7月28日在律敦治醫院骨科進行內窺鏡檢查才得以引證。

6.  丁先生的誓章沒有包括任何的醫療報告，但今天他在法庭呈遞了一些醫療報告給法庭參考。法庭由他的醫療報告可以看到，丁先生是在2009年10月15日已經第一次到律敦治醫院求診。醫療報告亦都提及到丁先生在2007年中國內地做過一次內窺鏡程序，而在醫療報告亦提及丁先生實情由2009年已經覺得痛楚是因為工傷而引起。丁先生在誓章內只提及在2010年7月28日當天做的內窺鏡手續。但實情是丁先生在2009年年尾已經開始向律敦治醫院求診。法庭不接納丁先生有一個合理因由從而解釋整段延誤時期。由2009年年尾到丁先生提出申請，即2010年9月24日，丁先生沒有提供一個合理因由解釋為甚麼在這時段沒有提出申請。即使法庭接納丁先生的解釋由2005年至2009年屯門醫院提供了一些可能錯誤的醫療意見，這解釋亦不能引申到2009年尾至到2010年9月份這個時段。基於以上原因，法庭不批准丁先生的申請。

7.  今天答辯人沒有出席，法庭亦就今天的聆訊不作出任何訟費命令。