Esheria Hong Kong Case Law
Sign in
Hong Kong Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Hong Kong Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
1 court collection
Last checked

Search and filter Hong Kong case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Hong Kong decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Employment law [2026] HKDC 636

LONG MINGZHEN v. MAN CHONG PERSONNEL CONSULTANT LTD

Court
District Court
Case number
DCEC2779/2023

On the balance of probabilities the applicant did not sustain a workplace injury: the applicant was found not credible due to evasive testimony, multiple material inconsistencies between her evidence and contemporaneous medical and other records (dates, complaint site, mechanism), unexplained delay in seeking treatment, objective findings and expert opinion indicative of symptom exaggeration; therefore the compensation claim was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.

Source excerpt

  • Occupational injury
  • Credibility assessment
  • Medical evidence
  • Delay in seeking treatment
  • Costs
Read case analysis
Employment law [2026] HKDC 395

KWOK CHI MAN 對 SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL SERVICES

Court
District Court
Case number
DCEC14/2024

Claim struck out because claimant plainly and obviously failed to discharge the evidential burden to prove on the balance of probabilities that his COVID‑19 infection arose out of and in the course of his employment; absence of contemporaneous reporting, lack of medical or environmental evidence linking infection to workplace, contradictory documentary record and alternative explanations rendered the claim incapable of success under O.18 r.19.

Source excerpt

  • Causation
  • Definition of 'accident'
  • Strike‑out under order 18 r.19
  • Burden of proof
  • Covid‑19 infection as workplace accident
  • Costs
Read case analysis
Employment law [2026] HKDC 95

李廣榮 對 金苑飲食集團有限公司

Court
District Court
Case number
DCEC1802/2022

On the facts the applicant remained employed and was within his normal working hours on employer's premises when assaulted; respondent produced no contrary evidence and did not require him to leave; therefore, under s.5(4)(a) the injury is to be treated as arising out of and in the course of employment and respondent is liable under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance.

Source excerpt

  • Employer liability
  • Arising out of and in the course of employment
  • Termination and post-termination conduct
  • Evidence and credibility
  • Disclosure of rule 22 form 23
Read case analysis
Employment law [2026] HKDC 76

LI YUYE 對 YIDE FOOD AND BEVERAGE HOLDING LTD

Court
District Court
Case number
DCEC2689/2023

Respondent in default; s11(2) governs income calculation because employment was very short; court accepts claimant's credible evidence (HK$70/hr, 10 hrs/day, 26 days/mo, HK$100 meals) yielding monthly income HK$20,800 and adjusts daily rates by CPI for post-accident periods; accepts 0.75% permanent loss assessment and, on the basis of certified sick leave and absence of rebuttal, applies s10(2) presumption and exercises s10(5) discretion to extend temporary incapacity compensation by 12 months; applies Schedule 3 caps to medical expenses; awards total compensation of HKD 438,068.06 plus inter…

Source excerpt

  • Calculation of statutory compensation under employees' compensation ordinance
  • Assessment of earnings under s11(2) for short employment
  • Temporary total incapacity and extension under s10 and s10(5)
  • Medical expenses under s10a and schedule 3 caps
  • Cpi adjustments to earnings under ss11(1a)(b) and 11(1b)(b)
  • Consequences of default judgment and preclusion of evidence
Read case analysis
Employment law [2026] HKDC 57

NG PUI KWAN 對 YU KA PO trading as SAN PO ENGINEERING COMPANY

Court
District Court
Case number
DCEC671/2022

Because the respondent failed to discharge its evidential burden and produced no evidence on its pending appeals, the court accepted the Labour Department Form 9 findings as conclusive for assessment; monthly income was calculated under s11(1)(b) by aggregating May and June 2021 earnings and proportionating to a 30‑day month; applying statutory formulas under s9, s10 and s10A, deducting amounts already paid and excluding unreceipted and capped medical expenses, yields a net award of HK$312,204.60 with interest and costs as ordered.

Source excerpt

  • Statutory compensation under s9 s10 s10a
  • Calculation of monthly income under s11
  • Medical expenses cap (schedule 3)
  • Loss of earning capacity
  • Interest on awards
  • Costs
Read case analysis
Workers' compensation [2026] HKDC 49

HO KWAI WA 對 棉紡會中學法團校董會

Court
District Court
Case number
DCEC1533/2023

Except for two discrete factual clarifications (questions (4) and (5)), the expert's report did not contain medical ambiguities requiring oral evidence; many of the applicant's queries arose from non-medical issues or misinterpretation of the report and can be resolved by the judge or by a written supplementary report. Given the likely disproportionate costs of oral expert attendance relative to the claim, the application to summon the expert was refused; respondent must instead seek written answers and a supplementary report from the expert within specified time limits. Applicant ordered to…

Source excerpt

  • Expert witness attendance
  • Medical evidence
  • Costs
  • Admissibility
Read case analysis
Employment law [2026] HKDC 15

TAN DAOXIU 對 鍾勝華及另一人

Court
District Court
Case number
DCEC1626/2023

Court found on the balance of probabilities that on 21 September 2021 the applicant was a daily-paid employee of the first respondent engaged in welding work and that the second respondent was the principal contractor for the project and therefore liable under s24 of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance. The Form 7 assessment was accepted absent contrary proof. Because the applicant's employment with the first respondent was short, s11(2) applied and the court used the applicant's 2020/2021 tax year average monthly income of HK$15,910.42 as the basis for calculating compensation, resulting i…

Source excerpt

  • Employee status vs independent contractor
  • Principal contractor liability under statute
  • Calculation of monthly income under s11
  • Admissibility and weight of form 7
  • Assessment of compensation under ss9,10,10a
Read case analysis
Employment law [2025] HKDC 2131

關艷群 對 六合藥業有限公司

Court
District Court
Case number
DCEC425/2021

Claim dismissed because no 'accident' as defined under s5(1) was proved; occupational disease was not pleaded and the claimant's diagnosed condition is not a disease listed in Schedule 2; expert medical evidence found the shoulder pathology unrelated to the short period of data‑entry work; claimant found dishonest and her evidence rejected — therefore no legal liability under the Ordinance.

Source excerpt

  • Occupational disease
  • Workplace injury
  • Causation
  • Evidence and credibility
  • Dismissal
  • Costs
Read case analysis
Employment law [2025] HKDC 2064

KAN YUE SAN 對 DAILY SMART CONSULTANTS LTD

Court
District Court
Case number
DCEC1589/2024

Court found applicant was an employee but rejected that the alleged accident occurred and that any work‑related injury was proved: contemporaneous computer records contradicted the applicant's account on timing and nature of goods, applicant's evidence was assessed as not credible while respondent's witness was credible, and applicant failed to discharge the burden to prove occurrence and causation; claim dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Workplace injury
  • Employer liability
  • Employment status (employee v contractor)
  • Credibility and evidential weight
  • Causation and proof
Read case analysis
Employment law [2025] HKDC 2056

叶敏 對 翁其樂及另一人

Court
District Court
Case number
DCEC167/2023

The court accepted the applicant's evidence and documentary records over the first respondent's inconsistent account and found that the first respondent was the applicant's employer and the second respondent was the main contractor who subcontracted the painting work to the first respondent; both respondents were therefore jointly and severally liable under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance and compensation was assessed and quantified at HK$1,100,364 with specified interest and costs orders.

Source excerpt

  • Employer identification
  • Subcontracting and vicarious liability
  • Assessment of damages
  • Credibility and witness evaluation
  • Interest and costs
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Hong Kong decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.