MOHAMMAD NOME 訴 莫德輝及另一人

DCPI51/2005

香港特別行政區

區域法院

區院傷亡訴訟2005年第51號

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

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

判決書

1.  被告人的申請，是要求本庭剔除原告人於2005年11月11日存檔之申索陳述書及撤銷原告人於本案的訴訟。

2.  在申索陳述書的第2段，原告人指稱，在2002年1月他受聘為被告人的僱員，職位為general worker。申索陳述書的第四段指稱他的受僱始於2002年1月18日。申索陳述書的第5段有以下的陳述，“one of the Plaintiff’s duties was to move manufactured clothes and other items between the ground floor shop premises and the garret on the first floor of the building.” 第6段說，“The means of access between the said garret and the ground floor shop was by use of a staircase, towards the rear of the shop, that was:-

a)	within the curtilage of the defendant’s premises;
b)	in the alternative, in respect of which, the defendants were de facto occupiers and users thereof.  The said stairs were kept in a dirty, slippery state but also used as a storage place for rubbish kept in plastic bags or cartoon boxes and spillage from such bags and boxes.”

3.  就他的受傷的經過，原告人在第8段指稱，“At about 6:00 p.m. on the 22nd January 2002, the Plaintiff was descending the stairs when he slipped near the top of the upper part of the stairs, lost his balance and fell down the remaining stairs.  The Plaintiff sustained various injuries as particularized hereafter.”

4.  2004年1月17日，原告人在區域法院對本案的被告人提出僱員因工受傷的索償案件(案件編號DCEC66/2004)。在該案件中，原告人指稱他身為被告人僱員因工受傷的日期“on or about 22.1.2002”。在該案的申索書的第1段原告人說，“on or about 22nd January 2002, personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment was caused to the applicant, an employee employed by the respondent。”經過審訊後，該案的主審法官在2006年9月27日撤銷原告人的申索。

5.  在該案的判案書的第6段，主審法官就原告人指他受傷的經過作出以下的撮要:-

“

At about 6 pm on 22nd January 2002, he was walking down the stairs from the garret to the ground floor with a cartoon box containing garments in his hands.  There were 2 flights of stairs with a landing in between.  The 2 flights were in an L - shape.  He slipped on the dirty and slippery upper flight of stairs.  He injured his left elbow and left side.  The box with its contents came to a rest on the landing......  He could not continue to work.  He just sat there.  He asked somebody, not Mrs. Mok, who seemed to be in authority to allow him to leave early.  He was allowed to leave early.  It was not yet 8 pm.”

6.  在判案書的第17段，主審法官就被告人對由原告人受傷的證據有以下的描述:-

“

On the morning of 22 January 2002, his wife phoned Mrs. Mok.  She told Mrs. Mok that he had fallen down and injured at work in the shop the previous day (i.e., 21 January 2002).  He was unable to come to work that day (i.e., 22 January 2002).  Mrs. Mok found it strange because he had already resigned on the evening of 21 January 2002 upon knowing that his wages would only be $6,000.00, not $7,500.00 as requested by him.”

7.  主審法官對該案作出以下的裁決:-

“

I find that the applicant had resigned on the evening of 21 January 2002.  He had not had any accident or injuries throughout the period of employment in the shop.  He had sustained injuries at a time after he left the shop at about 7 p.m. on 21 January 2002 but before 10 - 11 am on 22 January 2002.  His wife then phoned Mrs. Mok on the same morning of 22 January 2002.  She told Mrs. Mok that he had been injured in the shop on the previous evening (i.e., 21 January 2002).”

8.  該案法官最後撤銷原告人的申索。原告人對該案的判決沒有提出上訴。

9.  原告人在本案（即DCPI51/2005）提出申索的事實基礎是在2002年1月22日下午約6時在被告人的店舖內受傷，但在DCEC66/2004一案的法官已把指稱作出判決，該判決否定本案原告人受傷的日期和時間，該案的法官的判決是，“He had sustained injuries at a time after he left the shop at about 7 p.m. on 21st January 2002 but before 10 - 11 a.m. on 22nd January 2002.” 原告人在本案所指稱他受傷的時間是2002年1月22日下午約6時， 因此，原告人受傷時間的指稱已為DCEC66/2004一案的法官的判決所否定，原告人受傷的時間的指控是本案最關鍵之點，這事實已被DCEC66/2004一案的法官作出裁定，原告人沒有就該案的裁決提出上訴，因此，該案的判決已成為終局的判決，原告人不可亦不能就已被裁定不成立的指稱為基礎在本案再提出申索，因此，他的申索沒有合理的訴因，因此本席剔除原告人的申索陳述書以及撤銷他在本案的訴訟。

10.  原告人需支付予被告人本案訴訟以及所有各階段聆訊（包括是次傳票申請聆訊）的訟費。如與訟雙方未能同意訟費的款額，該款額由訟費評定官評定。