CHAN KIN MAN, SIMON AND OTHERS v. PACIFIC DRAYAGE CO LTD

CHAN KIN MAN, SIMON AND OTHERS v. PACIFIC DRAYAGE CO LTD

On the totality of the evidence the claimants were held to be employees because the defendant exercised significant control (directions on work, leave, inability to hire replacements), collected and applied fees (including the 45% deduction for running costs), the business registrations and contractual labels were sham, and the factual indicia pointed to employment rather than subcontracting.

Citation
CHAN KIN MAN, SIMON AND OTHERS v. PACIFIC DRAYAGE CO LTD
Parties
1st Claimant (respondent): Chan Kin Man; 2nd Claimant (respondent): Lam Shui Tim; 3rd Claimant (respondent): Pang Wah
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 July 2008
Case Number
HCLA49/2007
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal to High Court (labour Tribunal Appeal Nos. Hcla49/2007 & Hcla50/2007) / Appeal Judgment (dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employment Status, Subcontractor Versus Employee, Annual Leave Pay, Statutory Holiday Pay, Control Test
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Labour Law Employment Status Subcontractor Versus Employee Annual Leave Pay Statutory Holiday Pay Control Test

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Kin Man

1st Claimant (respondent)

Lam Shui Tim

2nd Claimant (respondent)

Pang Wah

3rd Claimant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal to High Court (labour Tribunal Appeal Nos. Hcla49/2007 & Hcla50/2007) / Appeal Judgment (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants were employees or independent subcontractors
  2. 2 Whether claimants were entitled to annual leave pay and statutory holiday pay

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of the evidence the claimants were held to be employees because the defendant exercised significant control (directions on work, leave, inability to hire replacements), collected and applied fees (including the 45% deduction for running costs), the business registrations and contractual labels were sham, and the factual indicia pointed to employment rather than subcontracting.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant to pay the claimants costs of the appeals, to be taxed if not agreed
  • Legally aided claimants’ own costs to be taxed in accordance with the legal aid regulations