工傷賠償及損害賠償評估？申索得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Rukhsar Begum v Native English Center Limited (trading as The Green Lounge) - 法院：區域法院 (District Court) - 法官：HH Judge Levy - 判決日期：2017年4月3日 ### 案情摘要 申請人/原告人Ms Begum是一名24歲的巴基斯坦裔香港居民，於2013年10月11日在其僱主Native English Center Limited（以「The Green Lounge」名義經營）的西餐廳擔任侍應時滑倒受傷，導致右無名指和右膝受傷。她透過法律援助署委派的律師，對僱主提出了兩項訴訟：一項是根據《僱員補償條例》(Employees' Compensation Ordinance)提出的僱員補償申請（EC Action），另一項是普通法下的人身傷害索賠（PI Action）。由於僱主未有出庭應訊，兩項訴訟均已獲得中間判決 (interlocutory judgments)。法院指示將兩項訴訟的賠償和損害賠償評估合併審理，以節省訟費。僱主在審訊中仍然缺席。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於評估原告人因工傷事故所遭受的僱員補償和普通法損害賠償。具體包括：如何計算原告人的每月收入，特別是考慮到她受僱時間短暫；如何評估病假期間的收入損失；以及如何確定永久喪失賺取收入能力的百分比。此外，法院還需決定是否接納原告人未經許可提交的第三份證人陳述書，並評估其對訟費的影響。 ### 判決理由 法官在評估僱員補償時，根據《僱員補償條例》(Employees' Compensation Ordinance)第11(1)(b)條，考慮到原告人受僱時間短暫，採用對她最有利的方式計算每月收入，最終裁定為$8,280。對於喪失賺取收入能力，法官接納骨科專家的意見，認為勞工處醫療評估委員會 (Medical Assessment Board, MAB)的評估未能充分反映原告人的傷勢，將喪失賺取收入能力的百分比從2.5%提高到5%。在普通法損害賠償方面，法官根據醫療證據認定原告人無法恢復事故前侍應工作，但應積極尋找合適的替代工作以減輕損失。法官亦拒絕接納未經許可提交的第三份證人陳述書，並因第一份證人陳述書和損害賠償陳述書 (Statement of Damages, SOD)中包含不相關內容而削減訟費。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了Chan Yuet Keung v Harmony (Int’l) Knitting Factory Ltd [2010] 5 HKLRD 599，以支持法院在評估非附表傷勢的喪失賺取收入能力百分比時，可參考醫療專家的意見。此外，判詞後記部分引用了Maxwell v Keliston Marine (Far East) Ltd (In Liq) & Anor [2012] 2 HKC 249，就如何處理並行僱員補償和普通法訴訟提供了指引。其他案例主要用於比較人身傷害賠償金額。 ### 裁決與命令 法院裁定原告人勝訴。在僱員補償訴訟中，判給總額$113,829。在人身傷害訴訟中，判給總額$312,427，但根據《僱員補償條例》第26(1)條的規定，扣除僱員補償金額後，最終判給$198,598。法院還就訟費作出命令，包括對重複訟費進行分攤，不允許第三份證人陳述書的訟費，並因第一份證人陳述書和損害賠償陳述書中包含不相關內容而分別扣減20%的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了在並行僱員補償和普通法訴訟中，律師應注意成本效益和程序經濟性。法官對律師未經許可提交證人陳述書以及在證人陳述書和損害賠償陳述書中包含大量不相關內容表示不滿，並因此削減了相關訟費。這提醒律師在準備訴訟文件時，必須確保內容的相關性和符合程序規定，否則可能面臨不利的訟費後果。判詞後記亦提供了處理並行訴訟的實用指引。 --- ### 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: Rukhsar Begum v Native English Center Limited (trading as The Green Lounge) - Court: District Court - Judge: HH Judge Levy - Date of Judgment: 3 April 2017 ### Factual Background Ms Begum, a 24-year-old Pakistani Hong Kong resident, slipped and fell on 11 October 2013 while waitressing for her employer, Native English Center Limited (trading as "The Green Lounge"), a Western-style restaurant. She sustained personal injuries to her right ring finger and right knee. Through her legally-assigned solicitor, she initiated two proceedings against the employer: an Employees' Compensation application (EC Action) under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance, and a common law personal injuries claim (PI Action). Interlocutory judgments were obtained in both actions due to the employer's default in appearance. The court directed a single trial for the assessment of compensation and damages to save costs. The employer remained absent during the trial. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issues in this case revolved around the assessment of employees' compensation and common law damages for the plaintiff's work-related injuries. Specifically, how to calculate the plaintiff's monthly earnings given her short employment period, how to assess loss of income during sick leave, and how to determine the percentage of permanent loss of earning capacity. Additionally, the court had to decide whether to admit the plaintiff's third witness statement, which was filed without leave, and to assess the cost implications of irrelevant content in other court documents. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge, in assessing employees' compensation, applied Section 11(1)(b) of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance, calculating the monthly earnings most favourable to the plaintiff, which was determined to be $8,280, given her brief employment. For loss of earning capacity, the judge accepted the orthopaedic expert's opinion that the Medical Assessment Board's (MAB) assessment did not fully reflect the plaintiff's injuries, increasing the percentage from 2.5% to 5%. In common law damages, the judge found that the plaintiff could not return to her pre-accident waitressing job due to residual pain but should mitigate her loss by seeking suitable alternative employment. The judge also refused to grant leave for the third witness statement and disallowed costs for irrelevant content in the first witness statement and the Statement of Damages (SOD). ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited Chan Yuet Keung v Harmony (Int’l) Knitting Factory Ltd [2010] 5 HKLRD 599 to support the court's discretion to consider medical expert opinions when assessing the percentage loss of earning capacity for non-scheduled injuries. The postscript of the judgment referred to Maxwell v Keliston Marine (Far East) Ltd (In Liq) & Anor [2012] 2 HKC 249 for guidance on handling parallel employees' compensation and common law proceedings. Other cases were primarily used for quantum comparison in personal injury claims. ### Decision & Orders The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff. In the EC Action, a total of $113,829 was awarded. In the PI Action, a total of $312,427 was awarded, which was then reduced to $198,598 after deducting the EC compensation as per Section 26(1) of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance. The court also made costs orders, including apportionment of duplicated costs, disallowing costs for the third witness statement, and a 20% reduction in costs for the first witness statement and the Statement of Damages due to irrelevant content. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the importance for legal practitioners to ensure cost-effectiveness and procedural economy in parallel employees' compensation and common law proceedings. The judge expressed displeasure and imposed cost sanctions for the solicitor's failure to obtain prior leave for a witness statement and for including extensive irrelevant material in court documents. This serves as a reminder that adherence to procedural rules and relevance in pleadings are crucial to avoid adverse cost consequences. The postscript also provides practical guidance on managing parallel actions. --- ### 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.