Hong Kong Case Law

陳嘉琪 對 嘉頓有限公司

Court

District Court

Case number

DCEC864/2019

Relief from the penalty clause is refused because the applicant failed to provide any adequate explanation for non‑compliance with the unless order, her conduct indicates deliberate or culpable refusal to attend the medical examination and to disclose requested medical records, the respondent suffered real prejudice and wasted costs and time, and case management and fairness to the respondent require enforcement of the unless order and the costs order.

Source excerpt

• Relief from sanctions
• Unless order
• Costs order
• Disclosure obligations
• Medical examination

Read case analysis

HE ZHIJUAN v. HONG YIP SERVICE COMPANY LTD

Court

District Court

Case number

DCEC2451/2022

The District Court granted leave to adduce psychiatric expert evidence in an employees’ compensation case, finding a prima facie basis and no overriding prejudice.

• Admissibility of expert evidence
• Psychiatric injury
• Causation
• Costs
• Expert-evidence
• Psychiatric-injury

Read case analysis

FALCON INSURANCE COMPANY (HONG KONG) LTD v. SUN PROFIT LOGISTICS (HK) LTD

Court

District Court

Case number

DCCJ4224/2023

Assessment of damages judgment for an insurer recovering sums paid under an employee compensation policy after the insured failed to notify and defend.

• Employees' compensation ordinance
• Indemnity and recovery
• Policy breach - failure to notify
• Damages assessment
• Costs recovery
• Contribution

Read case analysis

AHMED ISRAR v. RICHPAC LOGISTICS LTD

Court

District Court

Case number

DCEC1583/2024

Costs decision in an employees’ compensation case after discontinuance against the second respondent. The court made no order as to costs, citing the respondent’s litigation conduct.

• Discontinuance
• Costs on discontinuance
• Strike out application
• Pre-action conduct
• Employees' compensation assistance fund
• Costs-on-discontinuance

Read case analysis

CHEUNG KI LAM 對 CHOI TAK TAI 及另一人

Court

District Court

Case number

DCPI2504/2019

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other ground justifying an appeal: the proposed grounds were primarily disagreement with the trial judge's factual and quantum findings, re-argument of matters already considered, and did not show any plain error, misapprehension or omission of critical evidence by the trial judge; accordingly leave was denied and costs were awarded to the second defendant (summary assessment HKD 38,854).

Source excerpt

• Assault
• Vicarious liability
• Employer negligence
• Compensation set-off
• Leave to appeal standards
• Costs assessment

Read case analysis

LEE CHI HO v. LAI YING TUNG MICHAEL

Court

District Court

Case number

DCPI528/2022

Assessment of damages in a personal injuries action arising from an assault at work, with awards for PSLA, loss of earnings, future medical expenses and special damages.

• Assessment of damages
• Pain, suffering and loss of amenity (psla)
• Pre-trial loss of earnings
• Future medical expenses
• Set-off for employees' compensation
• Interest

Read case analysis

LAM KONG SO, the Administrator of the estate of LAM CHUN SING, deceased v. SHUI DIAN BAO AIR CONDITIONING LTD AND ANOTHER

Court

District Court

Case number

DCEC448/2021

The court dismissed two interlocutory applications in an employees’ compensation case: one to adduce late bank evidence, and one to extend time to appeal an assessment.

• Disclosure of documents (peruvian guano test)
• Trial bundle composition
• Admissibility of documentary evidence
• Continuing duty to disclose (slod)
• Extension of time to appeal
• Probative value of bank records

Read case analysis

梅啟明 對 GOODWILL CATERING MANAGEMENT LTD

Court

District Court

Case number

DCEC1911/2023

The court dismissed the applicant's May 28, 2024 summons because (1) permission to appeal under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance should be sought from the Court of Appeal and not returned to the District Court; (2) the applicant's 42‑day delay was unjustified and the reasons given did not constitute good cause; (3) the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success on the evidence; and (4) the applicant failed to show good reason to stay enforcement of the costs order. Accordingly the application was revoked and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time for appeal
• Stay of execution of costs order
• Jurisdiction under employees' compensation ordinance
• Permission to appeal

Read case analysis

劉婉莉 對 PURE INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD

Court

District Court

Case number

DCEC18/2022

Applicant failed to provide credible, evidence‑based 'good reasons' for non‑attendance (medical excuses unsupported and contradicted by earlier court attendance); there were no special circumstances requiring exercise of the court's discretion to restore; accordingly the court refused to reopen the automatically dismissed claim.

Source excerpt

• Restoration of struck‑out claims
• Exercise of judicial discretion
• Good reasons test
• Effect of labour department injury assessment

Read case analysis

陸顯強 對 葉宋球經營全球裝建工程公司

Court

District Court

Case number

DCEC401/2023

Court accepted the applicant's use of s.11(2) methodology to fix monthly earnings at HK$20,800, accepted the uncontested 293 days of incapacity determined under s.16D, applied s.10 formula to award HK$162,517.33 for temporary incapacity, awarded medical expenses of HK$4,630 under s.10A/Schedule 3, deducted HK$16,740 already paid, and entered judgment for the applicant for a net sum of HK$150,407.33 plus interest and costs.

Source excerpt

• Employees' compensation ordinance
• Quantum assessment
• Medical expenses
• Interest and costs
• Statutory computation of earnings under s.11(2)

Read case analysis