Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Calculation of statutory compensation

Legal area

Court

4 Dec 2025

CHOW PAK SHING SPINZA v. TAM YUEN MAN, executrix of the estate of TAM SIU KEUNG, deceased formerly trading as SIU ON SCAFFOLDING COMPANY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1952
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1413/2023

The court found on the whole of the evidence that the applicant was an employee of the 1st respondent (Siu On Scaffolding Company) based on the purchase order directed to Siu On, invoice in SOS Co's name, payment instructions and established practice with the 2nd respondent; it rejected competing accounts that work was by SOE Ltd or that the applicant was employed by Ho. Due to lack of credible corroborating evidence for the applicant's claimed earnings and inconsistent prior declarations, the court fixed monthly earnings at HK$10,000. Applying the statutory formulas and assessments (multipli…
5 Apr 2024

CHOI KAM WING v. SKY DRAGON INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKDC 483
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC984/2021

On the whole evidence — contemporaneous documents (organisation chart, CEDD nomination and appointment documents, attendance records showing employee number and position under Kwan On), the Applicant's unchallenged testimony that he took instructions only from 2nd Respondent staff, and absence of any evidential support from the 2nd Respondent for the contrary suggestion — the 2nd Respondent was the Applicant's employer at the time of the accident. The Form 2 and a cheque drawn by the 1st Respondent were insufficient to displace that conclusion. Therefore the 2nd Respondent is liable to pay st…
27 Oct 2023

KWONG FAI SHUN 對 AIDENTAS INTERIOR DESIGN LTD及另一人

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1339
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1451/2021

Court accepted claimant's contemporaneous notebook and evidence, drew adverse inferences against Chan for failing to comply with disclosure orders (and struck out Chan's defence on liability), found Chan to be subcontractor/employer of claimant and Aidentas the main contractor; therefore both Aidentas and Chan are jointly and severally liable for compensation. Compensation calculated pursuant to Cap.282 using the method most favourable to employee (monthly average HK$25,905; LoEC 50%; statutory formulas for ss.9,10,10A).
26 Sept 2023

CHEUNG KA FAI 對 FONG CHOW WO t/a SHING CHEONG RESTAURANT及另三人

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1165
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC859/2019

On the balance of probabilities the applicant was engaged as a casual worker by Fung Yuen Chiu (third respondent) and sustained the injury in the course of his employment on 7 April 2018; evidence of non‑attendance and non‑production rendered the absent affidavit of limited or no weight; compensation under ss.9,10 and 10A totalling HK$157,017 was payable by Fung with interest and specified costs orders.
27 Apr 2022

楊艷娥對保良局第一張永慶中學

Citation

[2022] HKDC 273
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1528/2012

Court revoked the automatic 42‑day suspension because applicant had a history of multiple rejected legal aid applications with no material change in circumstances, substantial delay and inaction attributable to applicant, and the assessment involved undisputed calculations unaffected by absence of counsel; compensation was calculated under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance with specified credits for interim payments and medical costs; interest was awarded but limited to four years from each accident due to applicant's delay; costs awarded to applicant for merits but applicant ordered to p…
6 Aug 2021

陳華伙對陳劍偉經營小海灣飲食

Citation

[2021] HKDC 953
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1324/2019

The court accepted the applicant's credible evidence and expert medical opinion that the workplace accident on 17 May 2018 occurred and caused the left elbow injury; any oral agreement to accept HK$30,000 did not extinguish statutory compensation rights because s31 renders such waivers invalid absent statutory authorization; the court accepted the expert's 2.5% permanent loss figure and applied the Employees' Compensation Ordinance provisions using HK$23,000 monthly salary to calculate total statutory compensation of HK$369,578, awarding interest and costs to the applicant.
16 Jul 2021

CHEN JUNCHI 對羅達輝

Citation

[2021] HKDC 736
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC488/2020

Court found on the evidence that the defendant exercised control, provided tools, notified and paid the claimant and that the claimant was integrated into defendant's business, therefore an employment relationship existed; injury arose in course of employment; s11(2) applied to compute average monthly earnings and the court adopted HK$22,000 as the proper monthly wage; applying LC's assessment of 1.75% and the statutory formulas produced awards under s9, s10 and s10A totalling HK$303,020.47, with interest and costs as ordered.
7 Jun 2021

林枝年對林阮求

Citation

[2021] HKDC 661
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1017/2019

On the balance of probabilities the court found the applicant was an employee of the respondent at the time of the accident because the overall impression of the relationship showed respondent supplied materials and tools, exercised direction and control over work times and tasks, paid daily wages, retained commercial and financial responsibility for works, and the applicant did not bear profit/loss risk or managerial responsibility; compensation was calculated using applicant's proven daily wage HKD1,200 and average 17.5 working days per month yielding monthly income HKD21,000, producing sta…
16 Dec 2019

HAIDER ALI v. SUPREME LAUNDRY LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1600
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1937/2016

Court accepted Dr Lee's evidence that the applicant has 3% loss of earning capacity, increased the MAB assessment from 1% to 3%, and awarded statutory compensation calculated under s9(1)(b), s10 and s10A accordingly, with interest and costs.
12 Oct 2017

KWONG CHEUK SING v. SKY FIELD CONSTRUCTION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

KWONG CHEUK SING v. SKY FIELD CONSTRUCTION LTD AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2198/2013

The court found on uncontested evidence and R3's guilty plea that R3 was the employer and R2 acted as R3's agent; R1 was the principal contractor and therefore both R1 and R3 are liable under s24 ECO; on the facts and special circumstances s9(1A) and the Paper Mills formula were applied to assess permanent loss giving a 43.27% loss and statutory awards totaling HK$1,085,044; interest and costs were awarded as set out.