WONG CHI SUN v. A. S. WATSON & CO LTD

DCEC493/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION CASE NO. 493 OF 2011

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  In a claim for employees’ compensation the material facts require to be pleaded by an applicant are that the employee, namely, the Applicant, sustained injury or injuries during the course of his employment with the employer, namely, the Respondent. In the present application the Applicant states inter alia that at about 9.35 am the Applicant was pulling the goods loaded product carts from the truck to the ground. The product cart suddenly got stuck thus causing the Applicant to sprain his neck and shoulders and cause the injury.

2.  The respondent requested the Applicant for further and better particulars of the application under two items.  Item (1) states: “Please state with full particulars of what had caused the product cart to be stuck.”  So long as the Applicant pleaded that he sustained injury because the product card suddenly got stuck thus causing him to sprain his neck and shoulders and causing him to sustain injury, those particulars would be sufficient for the purpose of the trial. Whether the Respondent knew exactly what caused the product cart to be stuck would not have made any difference.  This is not a common law claim where the cause of the product cart to be stuck may give rise to negligence on the part of the Applicant or negligence on the part of a third party.  This is an employee compensation case.  The employer must give compensation to the employee whether the employee was at fault or not.  So the particulars requested under item 1 are not necessary for the trial judge to consider and not necessary from a legal point of view for the employer or the Respondent to know.

3.  The second item of request for particulars is whether the product cart refers to hand pallet truck.  This is not a request for particulars.  The answer, if given, whether “yes” or “no” to the request, would not advance the Respondent’s answer any further.  What is most important is whether the product cart, whatever it is named, was involved in the way as alleged by the Applicant, namely, it got stuck, thereby causing the Applicant to sprain his neck and shoulders and caused the injury he sustained.  This request for particulars is, again, unnecessary

4.  Due to the reasons aforesaid I refuse the application.

(Discussion re costs)

8. The Respondent to pay costs of this application to the Applicant summarily assessed at $2,000, to be paid within 14 days.  The Applicant’s own costs to be taxed in accordance with Legal Air regulations.