Raikham Bahadur for himself and the dependents of Raipartu Bahadur, deceased v. Paul Y.-Seli Joint Venture Group

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION CASE NO. 325 OF 2000

____________________

R U L I N G

____________________

1. I am now asked to give a ruling by Miss Lee, who appears on behalf of the respondents in respect of her clients' summons dated 30 December last year.

2. The matter comes about in this way: the applicant died as a result of a fire in a tunnel in which he was working in the course of his employment with the respondents. The respondents accepted liability very early on and they paid into court an amount in excess of $1.6 million in full and final settlement.

3. The applicants in this case are the dependents of the deceased, led, if I can put it in that way, by his father and a number of close relatives including brothers and sisters.

4. It became apparent that the deceased who comes from Nepal had married a lady who is also Nepali, Madam Limbu Saba in Hong Kong, and she had not been joined as one of the dependents in the application. The respondents were concerned when this summons was issued that she might appear some time in the future, or indeed that other dependents might appear at some time in the future, and make a claim against them so they were anxious that they should not be exposed to the prospect of two or even more sets of claims against them arising out of this incident. This is what lies behind the summons which I am now dealing with.

5. When the matter was last before me, I ordered the Immigration Department to provide the applicant's solicitors with the details of Madam Limbu's movements and also I directed that she be given notice of these proceedings by advertisement in a Nepali paper circulating in Hong Kong.

6. Fortunately, she has been contacted. She has co-operated fully with the court and she has made an affirmation through the assistance of the applicant's solicitors setting out the history of her very brief marriage with the deceased. She has confirmed in that affirmation, and also before me today that she was not a dependant at the time of the deceased's death and that, perhaps more importantly, she has no intention to make any claim in respect of this matter and not to make any future claims in respect of a child that was born to her. She is unwilling to indicate to me the precise status of the child vis-à-vis the deceased nor whether that child was a dependant of the deceased, but she has indicated again that she does not propose to make any claim on that child's behalf. The child is resident in Nepal and he is being looked after by her parents. She makes contributions to the child's upkeep herself from her own earnings in Hong Kong. She works as a waitress.

7. It seems to me that given what has now emerged since the matter was last before me, particularly as a result of the evidence of Madam Limbu, that one can safely say that the risk of any other dependents coming forward and making subsequent claims against the respondents are so slim that they can safely be discounted. For these reasons, I propose to dismiss this summons.

8. Costs will follow the event and there will be an order for Legal Aid taxation.