leetingsangappellantv.chungchi-keungandanother.docVIP

Lee Ting Sang Appellant v. Chung Chi-Keung and Another Respondents Privy Council Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Templeman, Lord Griffiths, Lord Goff of Chieveley and Lord Lowry LORD GRIFFITHS.The first respondent is a building subcontractor who was at the material time executing a subcontract on behalf of the second respondents who were the main contractors upon a construction site at the Shan King Estate in Hong Kong. The applicant is a mason who was working for the first respondent upon the subcontract. During the course of his work the applicant fell from a high stool and suffered injury. The question raised by this appeal is whether the provisions of the Employees Compensation Ordinance (c. 282) entitled the applicant to be compensated for his injury by the respondents.The Ordinance is clearly modelled upon the English Workmens Compensation Acts and provides for compensation to be payable to an employee in respect of an accident arising out of, and in the course of, his employment. An employee is defined in section 2 as any person who has . . . entered into or works under a contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer in any employment. The definition of employee includes casual workers: see section 2(1) proviso (b); and also employees who have entered into concurrent contracts of service with two or more employers: see section 11(7).The respondents resisted the applicants claim for compensation upon the ground that he was not working for the first respondent as an employee but had been engaged to carry out the work as an independent contractor. At the hearing before the district judge the applicant gave evidence in which he explained the nature of his work and the terms of his engagement. The respondents called no evidence.The district judge held that the applicant was working as an independent contractor and therefore dismissed his claim for compensation. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants appeal. The applicant now appeals upon the gr