Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Direct discrimination

Legal area

Court

23 Sept 2025

WONG WING HEI v. THE INCORPORATED MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF TIN SHUI WAI METHODIST COLLEGE

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1616
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO14/2023

The court granted the respondents' applications to adduce Professor Alan Cheung's expert report, holding that the subject matter (conventional school dress and appearance) is within an area where expert assistance may be needed, Professor Cheung is suitably qualified and the proposed issues are relevant to the pleaded packaging defence; the claimant's application to admit psychiatric evidence was dismissed as the proposed issues were overbroad and not shown to be necessary or relevant to the pleaded indirect discrimination claim. The court directed claimants may file any expert reply within 2…
18 Jan 2022

C v. THE CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2022] HKDC 77
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO6/2017

The dismissal of the claimant's application and discontinuation were based on a legitimate academic assessment that she could not reasonably complete four long‑overdue assignments within the two‑month extension sought; the reference to medical history was explanatory and consolatory, not an operative reason; the MSP and 5.4 discretion are justified; consequently there was no direct or indirect discrimination or victimisation and all claims fail.
3 Sept 2021

LEE CHI BUN v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS (HK) LIMITED

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1101
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO7/2019

Claim dismissed: court found on balance that termination on 23 December 2016 resulted solely from a bona fide redundancy following an integration with Alcon in 2016; claimant's poor performance and contemporaneous performance review preceded employer's knowledge of his medical condition; claimant was not a credible witness and respondent offered a non-discriminatory explanation, therefore no breach of DDO s.6 or s.11 was established.
13 Aug 2019

LEUNG KWOK HUNG also known as "LONG HAIR" v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 30
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV56/2019

Leave to appeal was granted because the Appeal Committee found there is an arguable question of law whether Standing Order 41-05 amounts to direct discrimination under section 5(1)(a) of the SDO and/or is inconsistent with Article 25 of the Basic Law; the questions were certified for full hearing on 18 February 2020.
22 Jan 2019

LEUNG KWOK HUNG also known as “LONG HAIR”v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Citation

[2019] HKCA 56
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV34/2017

The notice of motion was dismissed because the questions as framed were confined to the specific prison context and did not raise statutory "great general or public importance" issues, and because the intended appeal was not reasonably arguable: the Court had already addressed the substantive arguments and held that conventional standards of appearance can be a relevant circumstance under the SDO and the applicant failed to establish less favourable treatment, rendering the Basic Law point dependent and unarguable.
30 Apr 2018

LEUNG KWOK HUNG also known as "LONG HAIR" v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Citation

[2018] HKCA 225
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV34/2017

The haircut policy did not amount to direct sex discrimination because, when relevant circumstances and conventional standards of appearance are properly considered and appearance restrictions examined as a package, male inmates were not treated less favourably than female inmates; any inequality is justifiable in the custodial context and, applying a deferential proportionality standard (manifestly without reasonable foundation), the Commissioner’s policy is lawful; appeal allowed and lower court order set aside.
30 Sept 2016

LAW CHI YUEN (formerly known as LAW O KI) BY WONG SIN HIS NEXT FRIEND v. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION

Citation

LAW CHI YUEN (formerly known as LAW O KI) BY WONG SIN HIS NEXT FRIEND v. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL91/2011

The Decision to exclude intellectual disability schools from eligibility for full‑time NETs was unlawful because it amounted to direct discrimination under s6(a) of the DDO: the SAME English curriculum adopted by the applicant's school was not materially different in nature from the mainstream English curriculum for the purposes of comparison, the Secretary treated the applicant less favourably by denying a full‑time NET while mainstream/non‑ID schools received NETs, and the Secretary's offered peripatetic support did not amount to equivalent treatment. The Decision is quashed and remitted fo…
4 Mar 2016

LAW MIU KUEN SALLY v. SUNBASE INTERNATIONAL (HOLDINGS) LTD

Citation

LAW MIU KUEN SALLY v. SUNBASE INTERNATIONAL (HOLDINGS) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO7/2012

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that any act of the defendant was caused by disability, sex or family status. The Leave Guideline was a neutral, lawful measure aimed at preventing malingering and applied generally; the set‑off allegation was unproven; statements at the 8 April 2010 meeting did not amount to a request to resign or discriminatory conduct; and the decision to terminate was supported by legitimate cumulative grounds (persistent poor performance, failure to prepare financial statements and file tax returns, poor attitude, petty cash complaints and misuse…
7 Aug 2012

KAN CHE SING v. LUCKY DRAGON BOAT (BELVEDERE) RESTAURANT LTD

Citation

KAN CHE SING v. LUCKY DRAGON BOAT (BELVEDERE) RESTAURANT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO10/2010

The plaintiff was a person with a disability; the defendant treated him less favourably by delaying reimbursement of medical expenses and by dismissing him and those actions were caused by animus connected to problems arising from the plaintiff's disability; requiring the plaintiff to lift wheelchairs after injury constituted unjustified indirect discrimination under section 6(b); accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff with specified damages, interest and costs orders.
24 Aug 2009

TONG WAI TING v. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

TONG WAI TING v. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL73/2009

Applicant failed to prove direct discrimination: the 18-year reference in ID schools is a planning trigger not an absolute bar, extensions are possible subject to vacancies and established criteria, and a proper comparator (mainstream Secondary 5 repeater) faces similar or greater constraints (quota/competition); misinterpretation of paragraph 12(c) does not assist applicant because paragraph 12(c) addresses a different subject matter and, on the evidence, was applied with a different purpose to non-ID special schools; legitimate expectation claims (substantive and procedural) do not establis…