誰是僱主？如何評估喪失賺取能力？？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：TSANG KWONG TONG v TENNILLE DECORATION & DESIGN LIMITED and NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED and WONG PING KUEN trading as WOR SHUN ENGINEERING COMPANY - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：張澤祐法官、鄧楨法官、關淑馨法官 - 判決日期：2006年10月10日 ### 案情摘要 申請人於2001年7月14日在一個地盤拆除鐵架時受傷。本案的核心爭議在於誰是申請人的僱主。第二答辯人（第一答辯人的保險公司）主張申請人是第三答辯人（分判商）的僱員，而第三答辯人是第一答辯人（主判商）的分判商。如果申請人是第一答辯人的直接僱員，則第二答辯人須根據《僱員補償條例》(Employees' Compensation Ordinance)承擔責任。如果申請人是第三答辯人的僱員，由於第三答辯人沒有投保，補償將由僱員補償援助基金支付。原審區域法院法官裁定第一答辯人是申請人的直接僱主。第二答辯人就此裁定及永久喪失賺取能力評估提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議為：誰是申請人的直接僱主？第二答辯人質疑原審法官接納第三答辯人證供的決定，認為法官未充分考慮申請人關於工資協議的證供差異。此外，第二答辯人亦就原審法官對申請人永久喪失賺取能力評估為18%提出上訴，認為原審法官應用了錯誤的法律測試。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭維持原審法官關於僱主身份的裁定。法庭認為，儘管第二答辯人指出原審法官未直接提及申請人與第三答辯人證供的差異，但原審法官已充分意識到工資協議的重要性，並有權接納第三答辯人的證供。關於僱員補償條例第24條，法庭指出第一答辯人向申請人支付大額款項，且沒有尋求第三答辯人彌償，這支持了第一答辯人是僱主的說法。至於喪失賺取能力評估，上訴法庭認為原審法官應用了錯誤的測試（錯誤地引用了《劉亞細訴姚連船塢有限公司》[1996] 4 HKC 244一案中關於取消勞工處處長證明書的測試，而非上訴審的正確測試），但基於整體證據及申請人的特殊情況，18%的評估並無不當，因此駁回上訴。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了《僱員補償條例》(Employees' Compensation Ordinance)第9條、第15條、第16B條、第16D條、第16G條、第18條及第24條。在判斷喪失賺取能力評估時，引用了以下案例： - Liu Ah Sai v. Yiu Lian Dockyards Ltd. [1996] 4 HKC 244：原審法官錯誤引用了此案中關於取消勞工處處長證明書的測試。 - Chan Kit v. Sam Wo Industrial Manufactory [1989] 1 HKC 115：上訴法庭指出此案闡明了對僱員補償評估委員會裁決上訴的正確測試，即法院應重新審視。 - Chan Kam v. Standard Chartered Bank Hong Kong Trustee Ltd. [1991] 2 HKLR 455：引用此案說明在僱員特殊情況下，應根據第9(1A)條評估喪失賺取能力。 - Mak Tin Chun v. Yeu Shing Construction Co. Ltd. [1991] 2 HKLR 460：同上。 - Fu Kwong Woon v. Chau Woon & Anr. [1992] 1 HKC 562：同上。 - Yip Fong Ming v. Joint-Effort Engineering Co. & Anr. [1989] 1 HKC 505：引用此案說明身體狀況並非影響賺取能力的唯一因素，且醫生報告應充分考慮僱員的特殊情況。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回第二答辯人就僱主身份及喪失賺取能力評估提出的上訴，並判第二答辯人支付申請人訟費。原審法官關於第一答辯人為申請人僱主的裁定及18%喪失賺取能力的評估均獲維持。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申，在僱員補償上訴中，即使原審法官應用了錯誤的法律測試，上訴法庭仍可根據整體證據和僱員的特殊情況，維持原判的評估結果。此外，判斷僱主身份時，法庭會綜合考慮各方證供及行為，例如主判商支付大額補償而未尋求分判商彌償，可作為認定其為僱主的證據。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: TSANG KWONG TONG v TENNILLE DECORATION & DESIGN LIMITED and NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED and WONG PING KUEN trading as WOR SHUN ENGINEERING COMPANY - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Cheung JA, Hon Tang JA, Hon Kwan J - Date of Judgment: 10 October 2006 ### Factual Background The applicant sustained injuries on 14 July 2001 while demolishing an iron frame at a site. The central issue in this case was the identity of his employer. The 2nd respondent (insurer of the 1st respondent) contended that the applicant was an employee of the 3rd respondent (sub-contractor), who was in turn a sub-contractor of the 1st respondent (principal contractor). If the applicant was a direct employee of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent would be liable under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance. If the applicant was an employee of the 3rd respondent, compensation would be paid from the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund as the 3rd respondent was uninsured. The trial judge in the District Court found the 1st respondent to be the applicant's direct employer. The 2nd respondent appealed against this finding and the assessment of permanent loss of earning capacity. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issues were: Who was the applicant's direct employer? The 2nd respondent challenged the trial judge's acceptance of the 3rd respondent's evidence, arguing that the judge failed to adequately consider discrepancies in the applicant's testimony regarding the wage agreement. Additionally, the 2nd respondent appealed against the 18% assessment of the applicant's permanent loss of earning capacity, contending that the trial judge applied the wrong legal test. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding on the identity of the employer. The court found that despite the 2nd respondent's argument about the judge not directly addressing discrepancies in testimony, the trial judge was aware of the importance of the wage agreement and was entitled to accept the 3rd respondent's evidence. Regarding section 24 of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance, the court noted that the 1st respondent paid a substantial sum to the applicant without seeking indemnity from the 3rd respondent, which supported the finding that the 1st respondent was the employer. For the assessment of loss of earning capacity, the Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge applied the wrong test (incorrectly citing Liu Ah Sai v. Yiu Lian Dockyards Ltd. [1996] 4 HKC 244, which concerned the cancellation of a Commissioner's certificate, instead of the correct appellate test). However, based on the totality of evidence and the applicant's special circumstances, the 18% assessment was deemed not inappropriate, and the appeal was dismissed. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited sections 9, 15, 16B, 16D, 16G, 18, and 24 of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance. In determining the assessment of loss of earning capacity, the following cases were cited: - Liu Ah Sai v. Yiu Lian Dockyards Ltd. [1996] 4 HKC 244: Incorrectly applied by the trial judge regarding the test for cancellation of the Commissioner's certificate. - Chan Kit v. Sam Wo Industrial Manufactory [1989] 1 HKC 115: Cited by the Court of Appeal as setting out the correct test for appeals against Board assessments, requiring the court to start afresh. - Chan Kam v. Standard Chartered Bank Hong Kong Trustee Ltd. [1991] 2 HKLR 455: Cited for assessing loss of earning capacity under section 9(1A) in special circumstances. - Mak Tin Chun v. Yeu Shing Construction Co. Ltd. [1991] 2 HKLR 460: Same as above. - Fu Kwong Woon v. Chau Woon & Anr. [1992] 1 HKC 562: Same as above. - Yip Fong Ming v. Joint-Effort Engineering Co. & Anr. [1989] 1 HKC 505: Cited for the principle that physical condition is not the sole factor affecting earning capacity, and doctors' reports should fully consider special circumstances. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the 2nd respondent's appeal regarding both the employer's identity and the assessment of loss of earning capacity, ordering the 2nd respondent to pay costs to the applicant. The trial judge's finding that the 1st respondent was the applicant's employer and the 18% assessment for loss of earning capacity were upheld. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms that in employees' compensation appeals, even if the trial judge applied an incorrect legal test, the appellate court may still uphold the assessment based on the totality of evidence and the employee's special circumstances. Furthermore, when determining employer identity, the court will consider all evidence and conduct, such as a principal contractor paying substantial compensation without seeking indemnity from a sub-contractor, as evidence supporting the finding of employer status. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.