Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The District Court held that an oral agreement entitled the plaintiff to 90% of net advisory fees, not discretionary bonuses, and entered judgment for HK$582,284.79.
The Labour Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider the 'No Work No Pay' principle and commercial reasonableness in interpreting clauses 3 and 4 of the employment contract; the appeal is allowed and the claims for unpaid wages and payment in lieu of notice (and the employer's counterclaim) are remitted to the Labour Tribunal for rehearing limited to whether, given the Tribunal's factual finding that the employee was absent from 1 January 2024, the employer is required to pay any wages under the correct legal approach (including 'No Work No Pay').
Source excerpt
The Court of First Instance ordered a US$1.7 million interim payment in a damages-to-be-assessed dispute, rejecting delay objections and including an interest component.
Assessment of damages in a personal injuries claim arising from a fall at work, with damages assessed after deductions for pre-existing neck degeneration and EC Award credit.
On the totality of the evidence the applicant was a day-rate employee of the first or third respondents (and the second respondent as the main contractor was liable under s.24(1) of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance). The provision or non-provision of specific tools did not preclude employment where fixed daily pay, lack of commercial risk and degree of control over daily tasks established an employment relationship; accordingly statutory compensation was payable as calculated by the court.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed an employees’ compensation claim after finding the applicant had not proved he was employed by the first respondent when he was injured.
The Court of First Instance allowed a Labour Tribunal appeal, set aside the award, and sent the claim back for retrial because material evidence was not properly investigated.
The District Court held that section 11(8) of the Employees Compensation Ordinance does not let it compel disclosure of other employees’ earnings, and dismissed the summons.
The appeals are dismissed because the 2015/2016 retainers are irrelevant to the costs assessment, an implied retainer would bind the plaintiff to pay reasonable fees even if the 2017 written retainer were invalid, and a Protective Costs Order is inappropriate because the proceedings do not engage public interest; accordingly the defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs of the appeals and the plaintiff's claimed costs are to be assessed by summary procedure.
Source excerpt
The District Court refused leave to appeal to both defendants in a personal injury case, upholding findings on employability, causation, contributory negligence, and costs.
Explore more
