1. The Respondent is a Hong Kong permanent resident who claimed to be an employee of two companies, a Hong Kong company and a company incorporated in Pennsylvania in the United States (“the US Company”). His case was that he had suffered serious personal injuries by falling into a trench while working for his employers in a sewage treatment plant in Mainland China. Following his accident, he returned to Hong Kong to receive extensive medical treatment. 2. The Respondent obtained leave to serve a writ on the US Company in the United States, relying on three so-called jurisdictional “gateways” contained in O. 11, r. 1 of the Rules of the High Court, one of which was O. 11, r. 1(1)(f) (“Gateway F”). Gateway F allows a writ to be served on a defendant situated outside Hong Kong, and the Hong Kong courts to assume jurisdiction, if the claim is founded on a tort and the damage was sustained within the jurisdiction. Interlocutory judgment in default was entered in the Respondent’s favour against the US Company. 3. After the Hong Kong company settled the Respondent’s claim, the Appellant applied for, and was granted leave, to join in the proceeding pursuant to s. 25A(a) of the Employees Compensation Assistance Ordinance (Cap. 365) (“ECAO”), since, as a result of the settlement, it considered itself at risk of having to satisfy the Respondent’s claim against the US Company. The Appellant then applied to set aside the order granting leave to serve the US Company and the interlocutory judgment. 4. The Court of First Instance held that “damage” under Gateway F includes indirect or consequential damage. Although the Respondent was injured in Mainland China, he had received medical treatment and experienced pain, suffering and loss of amenities in Hong Kong, which was held to constitute sufficient indirect damage, therefore satisfying the requirements under Gateway F. 5. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which agreed that the requirements under Gateway F were satisfied. The Appeal Committee granted leave to appeal on one question of law of great and general importance concerning the interpretation of Gateway F, as well as a new question relating to the Appellant’s standing to intervene in the light of s. 33(d) of the ECAO, which provides that no claim against the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund (“the Fund”) lies in respect of injuries to employees who were engaged outside Hong Kong by an employer who is outside Hong Kong and has no place of business in Hong Kong. 6. The Court held that a person is “engaged” by an employer under s. 33(d) of the ECAO when that person enters into a contract of employment whereby he or she is hired as an employee. Although s. 33(d) was not directly addressed in the lower courts, when discussing other jurisdictional gateways, in particular, those concerning the making of contract within the jurisdiction, the Court of First Instance found that the Respondent’s employment contract was entered into in the United States. This finding was upheld by the Court of Appeal. Since it was not disputed that the other two elements of the provision were satisfied, the Court held that s. 33(d) precludes the Respondent from making a successful claim against the Appellant for a statutory relief payment. Therefore, the Appellant was not at risk and had no standing to challenge the Court’s assumption of jurisdiction against the US company. 7. The Court went on to consider whether the default judgment against the US Company should be set aside on the ground that the case did not come within Gateway F. The Court held that the natural and ordinary meaning of Gateway F is that it includes indirect or consequential damage. The gateways are only one element of the jurisdictional test. The court can refuse leave to serve a writ outside the jurisdiction, notwithstanding that one or more of the gateways are satisfied, if a case falls outside the letter and spirit of the gateways, or if Hong Kong is not the most appropriate forum. Therefore, there are sufficient safeguards against inappropriate invocation of the local courts’ jurisdiction. The indirect damage suffered by the Respondent in Hong Kong was sufficient to satisfy Gateway F. DISPOSITION 8. Accordingly, the Court unanimously dismissed the appeal.