Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of employment contract

Legal area

Court

13 Mar 2025

SPARKLE CAPITAL LTD v. CHAN WAI MAN also known as CHAN WAI MAN IVAN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 366
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1380/2018

Because the plaintiff was awarded only nominal damages for its sole successful claim while the bulk of its claims were dismissed and the defendant27s Calderbank offer had specifically highlighted the plaintiff27s difficulty proving loss, the plaintiff could not be regarded as the successful party entitled to costs of the action; accordingly the Costs Order nisi was varied to no order as to costs of the action, but costs of the application were ordered in favour of the defendant.
20 Dec 2024

UBS AG v. LAM CHUNG YIU CHARLES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3655
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA413/2021

The court held that plaintiff established a prima facie sustainable case that the 1st defendant was involved in the remaining 169 unauthorised transfers by reference to the defendant's criminal admissions, transaction records (CHATS/SWIFT), repeating merchant patterns and staff affirmations; the defendant failed to particularise any credible defence or identify witnesses or documents to support a defence; accordingly there were no triable issues and summary judgment was entered for plaintiff for damages of US$6,245,936.52 and for declaratory and account relief in respect of US$569,581.03, tog…
28 Nov 2024

SPARKLE CAPITAL LTD v. CHAN WAI MAN also known as CHAN WAI MAN IVAN

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1982
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ289/2021

The alleged oral agreement was not proved and contradicted documented terms; defendant breached the written employment contract by wilfully refusing to report and by operating NICADA without prior consent, justifying summary dismissal under s9(1) Employment Ordinance; however plaintiff failed to prove any loss or that confidential information or IP was misused or withheld, so relief is nominal damages to plaintiff while defendant is entitled to unpaid wages and annual leave shown to be owing.
28 Nov 2024

SPARKLE CAPITAL LTD v. CHAN WAI MAN also known as CHAN WAI MAN IVAN

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1982
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1380/2018

The alleged oral agreement was not proved and the defendant was bound by the written employment contract; the defendant breached that contract by refusing to report for duty and operating his own company without prior consent, but the plaintiff failed to prove any loss, breach of confidence or actionable misrepresentation, and the summary dismissal was lawful under s9(1) Employment Ordinance; plaintiff awarded nominal damages and defendant awarded unpaid wages and annual leave.
28 Feb 2024

LI CHI SUM v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES

Citation

[2024] HKDC 273
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO5/2018

Paragraphs 11–17 were struck out because they relate to discrete one‑off acts occurring between Dec 2010 and Apr 2012 and are therefore time‑barred: DDO s82(1) precludes claims more than 24 months after the act and LO s27(4) precludes tort claims for psychiatric injury more than 3 years after accrual; claimant failed to file affirmation evidence to justify extension under DDO s82(3) or LO s30, so the court would not exercise its discretion to allow the out‑of‑time claims; consequently paras 11–17 are struck and claimant granted leave to amend ACNOC except for paras 40A and 40B.
15 Jul 2022

SPARKLE CAPITAL LTD v. CHAN WAI MAN

Citation

[2022] HKDC 722
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ289/2021

Leave granted because the work report contains substantial technical and engineering data not readily intelligible to the court; expert opinion limited to identified issues is necessary and relevant to determine whether the report disclosed IP, inventions and specifications material to allegations of breach, and therefore will aid the tribunal at trial.
15 Jul 2022

SPARKLE CAPITAL LTD v. CHAN WAI MAN (also known as CHAN WAI MAN IVAN)

Citation

[2022] HKDC 722
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ836/2018

The court held that expert evidence on the technical contents of the work report was relevant and necessary to determine whether the defendant had disclosed all IP, designs and technical specifications and whether he fulfilled his implied and fiduciary duties; accordingly leave was granted limited to one expert per party and to specified issues with directions on nomination, exchange and joint statements of experts.
15 Jul 2022

CHAN WAI MAN v. SPARKLE CAPITAL LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 722
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1380/2018

The court held that expert evidence was relevant and necessary to interpret the technical engineering and testing data in the work report and to determine whether the report disclosed the inventions, designs, specifications and technical architecture relevant to the smart pillow; accordingly leave was granted, limited to one expert per party and confined to specified issues with directions for nomination, exchange of reports, meeting and joint statement.
28 Apr 2022

LI CHI SUM v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES

Citation

[2022] HKDC 379
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO11/2017

The court granted leave to amend the Consolidated Notice of Claim in respect of the specified amendments because the amendments related to the same disciplinary proceedings and were necessary to enable full adjudication of the real controversy, and the respondent had not demonstrated the proposed claims were bound to fail or disclosed no reasonable cause of action; the contested issues were fact sensitive and appropriate for trial.
4 Sept 2019

CHOY CHUN SING v. WONG KWOK CHUN

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1172
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI974/2014

The judge refused leave because he had properly applied the governing principle that an experienced employee performing a simple task could reasonably be relied upon by the employer, found the plaintiff experienced and the wife's alleged pressure unproven, and therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.