僱員補償條例酌情權行使原則？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：YU NONGXIAN (also known as YU NONGXIAN) v NG KA WING and EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ASSISTANCE FUND BOARD - 法院：香港終審法院 (Court of Final Appeal, CFA) - 法官：Bokhary PJ, Chan PJ and Ribeiro PJ - 判決日期：2008年1月17日 ### 案情摘要 一名非法居留香港的死者在拆除一個非法簷篷時墮樓身亡。其受養人向第一答辯人吳家穎（被指為僱主）提出僱員補償申索。由於吳先生沒有購買保險，僱員補償援助基金管理局（第二答辯人）被列為共同答辯人。區域法院法官周先生駁回申索，認為申索人未能證明吳先生是死者的僱主。上訴法庭推翻了區域法院的裁決，認為證據已充分確立吳先生的僱主身份，並應根據《僱員補償條例》第2(2)條行使酌情權，裁定申索人勝訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要爭議點有二。首先，上訴法庭是否正確裁定，死因研訊中證人的證詞，在發出傳聞證據通知後，於審訊中可獲接納為證據。第二，終審法院是否應就《僱員補償條例》第2(2)條所賦予的酌情權應如何行使，訂立一般原則。申請人（僱員補償援助基金管理局）認為，死因研訊的證據不可採納，且酌情權的行使應有更明確的指引。 ### 判決理由 終審法院合議庭認為，關於死因研訊證詞可否採納的問題，上訴法庭的裁決是正確的。傳聞證據通知制度引入後，死因研訊中的證詞不應被排除在外，且此點在本案中已屬學術性問題。至於就《僱員補償條例》第2(2)條酌情權的行使訂立一般原則，合議庭認為這並非法院可行的任務，因為該酌情權條款措辭廣泛，必須根據每個案件的事實和具體情況來行使。法院亦未發現有任何理由干預上訴法庭行使酌情權的決定。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 Bird v Keep [1918] 2 KB 692 一案，但合議庭指出該案的推理與本案傳聞證據通知制度下的證人證詞採納問題無關。Bird v Keep 涉及死因研訊的裁斷和死亡證明書的不可採納性，而非證人證詞。本案未有特別引用其他具決定性影響的案例。 ### 裁決與命令 終審法院駁回了僱員補償援助基金管理局提出的上訴許可申請，並命令申請人支付訟費。法院認為沒有足夠理由授予上訴許可，無論是基於具有重大普遍重要性的法律問題，還是其他特殊理由。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了《僱員補償條例》第2(2)條賦予的酌情權的廣泛性，並強調其行使應基於個別案件的事實。此外，判決澄清了在傳聞證據通知制度下，死因研訊中的證人證詞原則上可被接納，與 Bird v Keep 案所處理的死因研訊裁斷和死亡證明書的不可採納性有所區別。 --- ### 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: YU NONGXIAN (also known as YU NONGXIAN) v NG KA WING and EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ASSISTANCE FUND BOARD - Court: Court of Final Appeal (CFA) - Judge: Bokhary PJ, Chan PJ and Ribeiro PJ - Date of Judgment: 17 January 2008 ### Factual Background A deceased person, who was illegally in Hong Kong and unlawfully employable, fell to his death while demolishing an illegal canopy. His dependents filed an employees' compensation claim against the 1st respondent, Ng Ka Wing, named as the employer. As Mr. Ng was uninsured, the Employees' Compensation Assistance Fund Board (2nd respondent) was joined. The claim was dismissed by the District Court, which found that the claimants failed to establish Ng as the employer. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, holding that Ng's identity as the employer was clearly established and that the discretion under section 2(2) of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance should be exercised in favour of the claimants. ### Key Legal Issues The primary legal issues were twofold. First, whether the Court of Appeal correctly held that evidence given by witnesses in the coroner's inquest was admissible at trial, pursuant to hearsay notices served. Second, whether the Court of Final Appeal should lay down general principles for the exercise of discretion under section 2(2) of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance. The applicant (Employees' Compensation Assistance Fund Board) argued against the admissibility of the coroner's inquest evidence and sought clearer guidelines for the discretion's exercise. ### Ratio Decidendi The Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal found that the Court of Appeal was correct regarding the admissibility of coroner's inquest evidence. With the introduction of hearsay notices, there is no reason in principle to exclude such testimony, and the point was academic given the Court of Appeal's findings. Regarding the request to lay down general principles for the section 2(2) discretion, the Committee deemed it an impractical task, as the discretion is broadly worded and must be exercised based on the specific facts and mixture of discretionary factors in each case. No basis was found to interfere with the Court of Appeal's exercise of discretion. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case of Bird v Keep [1918] 2 KB 692 was cited, but the Committee clarified that its reasoning was not relevant to the admissibility of witness testimony under the hearsay notice scheme. Bird v Keep concerned the inadmissibility of a coroner's inquisition (jury's finding) and death certificate, not witness statements. None prominently cited as having a decisive influence on the present case's outcome. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Final Appeal refused the Employees' Compensation Assistance Fund Board's application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay costs. The Court found no sufficient grounds to grant leave, neither on the basis of questions of great general or public importance nor on any other exceptional grounds. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the broad nature of the discretion granted by section 2(2) of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance and emphasizes that its exercise is fact-specific. It also clarifies that witness testimony from a coroner's inquest can be admissible under the hearsay notice scheme, distinguishing it from the inadmissibility of the inquest's findings or death certificates as per Bird v Keep. --- ### 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.