YIM KWOK YUEN v. KEENTECH TRANSPORTATION LTD AND OTHERS

DCPI 25/ 2005

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 25 OF 2005

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

_______________

C O R R I G E N D U M

Paragraph 28:    ‘28.          Mr. Sadhwani refers [in para. 36 of Submissions] to Tsang’s evidence [in evidence-in-chief] that on 31 August 2000, he had told the plaintiff that the 1^st defendant was the employer.  However, he says [in cross-examination] that despite the plaintiff’s ineligibility due to old age he still told the plaintiff that the 1^st defendant would arrange for MPF.  He regarded it important to make it clear that the 1^st defendant was the plaintiff’s employer.  I do not find his evidence credible.’ The underlined should be deleted.

Paragraph 29:    ‘30.          Mr. Chan refers [in para. 11 of Submissions] to Tsang’s mention [in his statement to Lam, dated 4 December 2001, at D 103] that he could not remember whether he had told the plaintiff that the 1^st defendant was the actual employer.  He explains [in cross-examination] that Law (of the 1^st defendant) just asked him to tea and to give a statement to someone from the insurance company.  He did not know Lam of the insurance company.  Lam assured him that it would only be a casual statement.  In the restaurant, the television was noisy and people were talking and interrupting.  He gave casual answers and signed the statement.  I do not see how he could be so causal with the statement.  It was obvious a matter of great importance to him.  He could face serious financial consequences if the matter developed against his interest.  I do not find his evidence credible.’ The underlined should be deleted. This paragraph should be read as Paragraph 30.

Paragraph 30:    ‘31.          He is not satisfied [in cross-examination] with various parts of his statement [Statement to Toplies, dated 4 December 2001, BD 97-99].  He now marks them out with highlight pens.  He says he had reasons to sign the statement, though.  First, he could not read clearly as he had no reading glasses at that time.  Second, the television was noisy and Law was barging in all the time.  Third, he thought it was a causal statement.  Fourth, he was asked to sign.  However, he says subsequently that he still managed to briefly read this statement without reading glasses.  Mr. Sadhwani suggests that it did not matter that he had no reading glasses.  He replies that he does not know how to answer this.  I do not find his evidence credible.’ The underlined should be deleted. This paragraph should be read as Paragraph 31.

Dated the 11^th day of January 2006