Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
THE TORT GATEWAY: THE MISSING JIGSAW PIECE?
Alex CY Chan*
Kelvin KC Tse†
Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board v Fong
After two judgments of the Supreme Court,1 another aftershock has occurred of the death of Sir Ian Brownlie QC in a car accident in Cairo, this time felt by the apex court of Hong Kong. In Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board v Fong Chak Kwan
2 Lord Collins, sitting as a non-permanent judge, has expressed his view on the contours of the tort gateway for service out of jurisdiction.3 As will emerge below, the majority decisions in the Brownlie cases, namely, that the word “damage” in the tort gateway should be afforded a broad interpretation, have received his Lordship’s imprimatur, albeit subject to one important caveat which came perhaps as a surprise.
The facts
Fong was injured in an accident while at work in mainland China. He later returned to Hong Kong for medical treatment. He commenced proceedings in Hong Kong against, inter alios, the second defendant employer. He obtained leave to serve a concurrent writ out of the jurisdiction in the United States, having successfully relied upon the tort gateway under Ord.11 r.1(1)(f) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap.4A), which allows
* BCL Candidate, St Peter’s College, Oxford.
† BCL Candidate, Keble College, Oxford.
We are most grateful to Professor Edwin Peel and the anonymous referee for their insightful comments. Thanks are also due to Valerie Kwok and Regina Yip. All errors are of course our own.
1. Four Seasons Holdings Inc v Brownlie [2017] UKSC 80; [2018] 1 WLR 192 (hereafter “Brownlie I”); FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC v Lady Brownlie [2021] UKSC 45; [2022] AC 995 (hereafter “Brownlie II”).
2. [2022] HKCFA 12 (hereafter “Fong”).
3. In England and Wales, the tort gateway is to be found in para.3.1(9) of PD 6B, given effect by r.6.36 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The equivalent tort gateway in Hong Kong is to be found in Ord.11, the Rules of the High Court (Cap.4A), which follows the same wording under the Ord.11 r.1(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court as amended in 1987.
212