In week 3, I delved further into the practical aspects of legal work. I proofread lists of documents and conducted more legal research on PSLA for PI cases. I learnt that precise documentation of cases is crucial for verifying and reviewing the accuracy of the draft documents. Often, we have to look at the medical records, including the discharge slips, sick leaves, operation records, and A&E records. More conveniently, the medical reports provide a succinct summary of the AP’s medical history and condition.
The main research engine that I commonly use is HKLII, occasionally if I need cases from other jurisdictions or commentaries, I will look them up on Westlaw and Lexis Nexis.
I also attended two EC trials.
For the first trial, the AP suffered burns as a fire broke out while he was conducting welding works. Liability was admitted as it was an injury by accident during the course of his employment. For this case, the contentious issue was with the quantum (i.e., calculation of the EC compensation).
This case fell under situations where the employee had only gone to work for several days before the accident occurred. Hence, the number of days he went to work per month (this is needed to calculate the compensation) was governed by s.11(2) of the Employee Compensation Ordinance. Here, the pleading wrote 26 days, whereas the AP said 23-25 days. This essentially means that the Court will need to engage in a guessing game (of course taking into account the credibility of the evidence). That day, the respondent did not show up, thus only the AP took the stand. It was a quick trial. After both parties submitted their closing submissions, the Court would then make a judgement at a later time.
For the second trial, I was fortunate enough to attend all three phases of the case, including pre-trial preparation (including the meeting with AP and the counsel advice session before trial), the trial, and judgment release (the judge was very quick in releasing his judgement, in alignment with the civil justice reform in Hong Kong which aims to expedite the judicial process).
Both the applicant (i.e., AP) and respondent attended the trial, so I was able to observe the advocacy of counsels on both sides. To simplify, what happens generally is that before the trial, the claimant will file the statement of claim, and the respondent can respond to it (the defence). Then, the claimant can reply to the respondent’s defence. At trial, the witness statement stands as the witness’s evidence-in-chief, and both parties have the right to cross-examine each other’s witnesses. In this case, the AP’s counsel first examined the AP (examination-in-chief), followed by the respondent counsel’s cross-examination, and the AP counsel’s re-examine of the AP, to clarify any points of query raised during the process. After the trial, both parties will submit the closing submissions. The court will then hand down the judgment in the future.
During the examination, important legal issues, including whether the AP was an employee or self-employed, facts of the accident, causation of his psychiatric and physical injuries, and AP’s salary records were contested.
Similar to the first trial, the issue was the quantum. It was rewarding to see how counsels used their watertight logic to establish their points.