Background 1. Mr Lo Siu Wa (“Mr Lo”) was a carpenter employed by Nuovo Design Limited (“Nuovo”), which engaged in the business of interior design. Mr Lo was injured in the course of his employment. He obtained judgment against Nuovo for employees’ compensation and damages for personal injuries, but Nuovo failed to pay any of these sums and was wound up on the grounds of insolvency. 2. As required by the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance, Cap. 282 (“the Ordinance”), Nuovo had taken out an insurance policy (“the Policy”) with AXA China Region Insurance Company (Bermuda) Limited (“AXA”) in respect of its liability to pay compensation to employees. Under the Ordinance, provided that a policy is in force “in relation to” an employee at the time of his injury, the insurer is liable to pay any compensation due to the employee by his employer. The insurer is liable even if, as a matter of contract between the insurer and the employer, the insurer would have been entitled to repudiate its liability for misrepresentation or breach of contract on the employer’s part. If the insurer would have been entitled to so repudiate, but has paid compensation to an injured employee, the insurer has a right of recourse against the employer. (See sections 40(1), 43(1) and 43(4) of the Ordinance.) 3. Mr Lo made a claim against AXA pursuant to the Ordinance. AXA refused to pay on the ground that the Policy did not cover him (i.e. was not “in relation to” him). Mr Lo therefore turned to the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund (“the Fund”), a statutory fund for employees with unpaid claims for compensation. The Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board (“the Board”), which administers the Fund, took the view that the Policy covered Mr Lo and therefore AXA was liable. Mr Lo therefore sued both AXA and the Board. When the case came before the Court of First Instance, Mr Lo had been paid, and the remaining issue was which of the two, AXA or the Board, should be liable. This boils down to whether the Policy covered Mr Lo. 4. The Court of First Instance held that the Policy did not cover Mr Lo and accordingly the Board was liable. The decision was upheld by a majority in the Court of Appeal. The Board appealed to this Court. 5. The Policy contained a body and a schedule. The “Scope of Cover” clause in the body stated: “If any employee in the insured’s immediate employ shall sustain bodily injury or death by accident … arising out of and in the course of his employment by the insured in the business”. The last word “business” was described in the schedule as “interior design” and “office (interior design)”. The schedule also contained, under the heading “Employees’ Compensation”, a list (“the List”) of several posts in Nuovo. Those posts did not include construction workers such as carpenters. The Policy imposed two further obligations on Nuovo: (i) to provide AXA with the full particulars of its employees so that appropriate adjustment of the premium could be made, and (ii) to notify AXA of any material change in the number of its employees. 6. The evidence showed that, while Nuovo’s principal business was the production of interior designs, it engaged in a variety of construction works to execute its designs. The evidence also showed that Nuovo did not regard its construction workers as its employees. Accordingly, Nuovo did not notify AXA that it had employed construction workers, and no construction workers were mentioned in the List. Decision of this Court 7. The Policy did cover Mr Lo. The word “business” in the Policy included carpentry works which Mr Lo undertook. Courts should not be too finicky or pedantic about the interpretation of a brief description of an employer’s business. Otherwise, an employer might be found to have committed the criminal offence of failing to insure (see section 40(2) of the Ordinance) because it did not provide a sufficiently detailed description of its business. Construction work such as carpentry, which executed the designs produced by Nuovo, was ancillary to Nuovo’s principal business. Moreover, despite the use of the word “office”, the Policy (especially the references to overseas activities) showed that Nuovo’s activities were not confined to an office. 8. The Policy covered not just those employees stated in the List. The reason why AXA needed to know the full particulars of all employees of Nuovo (whether mentioned in the List or not), and to be informed of material change in the number of Nuovo’s employees, was that all these employees were covered by the Policy. 9. Nuovo had made a mistake in not realising that its construction workers such as Mr Lo were employees. Based on that mistaken view, Nuovo failed to provide correct information about its employees to AXA, and hence misrepresented them to AXA and was in breach of its obligations under the Policy. If Nuovo had not gone insolvent, AXA might have been entitled to repudiate its liability under the Policy, and seek recourse against Nuovo. But AXA remains liable to Mr Lo under the Ordinance. 10. For these reasons, this Court held that it was AXA rather than the Board which was liable to Mr Lo. Accordingly, this Court allowed the appeal.