Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disability discrimination

Legal area

Court

24 Apr 2026

SOJOBI, AKPEVWE JOYCE v. MS WONG WING SZE (THE PRINCIPAL, YAUMATI KAIFONG ASSOCIATION SCHOOL) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKDC 650
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5329/2025

The master correctly dismissed the summons because a District Court master lacks jurisdiction to grant the mandatory/injunctive transfer sought; the master's summary costs award was reasonable and not an error of law; the deputy judge dismissed the appeal and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' assessed costs.
2 Oct 2025

K v. TAM CHAU LONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1587
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO15/2023

Both applications were dismissed: the interrogatories were excessively prolix, oppressive and amounted to fishing beyond the matters in question and failed the stringent necessity test; the subpoenas to non-parties were overly wide, speculative and not shown to be relevant or necessary for fair disposal of the case. The psychiatric reports were not relied on as expert evidence. No order as to costs, but warning given to Claimant about proportionality and potential costs consequences under s73C.
23 Jun 2025

雷遠東對城市護衛有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKDC 995
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO6/2024

Applicant suffered from Generalised Anxiety Disorder which qualified as a 'disability' and the respondent knew of it from litigation records, but on the evidence the dismissal was caused by the applicant's prolonged inability or refusal to provide a return-to-work date and business operational needs; the respondent's explanation was credible and, in any event, s12 applied because timely attendance and ability to perform inherent requirements of a security guard could not be met, therefore there was no contravention of DDO s11(2)(c).
2 May 2025

CHAN LONG NING, CHRISTINE v. DICKSON CONCEPTS (RETAIL) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 721
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1660/2024

The claims as pleaded in the Draft Amended Statement of Claim were struck out: employment contract claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal and, alternatively, barred by the Henderson v Henderson abuse of process rule; the discrimination claim was brought outside the 24-month limit under DDO s82(1) and the plaintiff failed to show it was just and equitable to extend time under s82(3); the psychiatric injury claim was not a standalone cause and was barred by prior DCPI proceedings under Henderson/res judicata. The amendment and stay applications were dismissed and th…
24 Feb 2025

陳思維對根記環保工程有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKDC 293
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO5/2023

Applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on appeal because the alleged factual errors were not plain or material, many claims were barred by prior settlements or constituted an abuse of process, the fresh insurer letter was not properly presented or explanatory and would not alter conclusions, and the circumstances justified refusal to vary the costs order under the applicable statutory regime; accordingly leave to appeal was dismissed and the costs order was confirmed.
23 Dec 2024

陳思維對根記環保工程有限公司

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2162
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO5/2023

The claimant failed to prove that the respondent treated him less favourably because of his disability; many of the monetary claims were subsumed in prior settled proceedings and are therefore barred by res judicata; the respondent's non‑payments were explained as insurer directions or non‑discriminatory discretionary policies; claimant failed to prove he was still in employment for the relevant alleged discriminatory acts or that the respondent communicated acceptance of any repudiation to terminate. Accordingly the discrimination claim is dismissed and costs are awarded to the respondent.
20 Dec 2024

ALESSANDRO GUARINO v. QUASAR ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2159
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO6/2023

The court refused to strike out the impugned pleadings and witness statement passages because the claimant has pleaded a substantive disability discrimination claim under the DDO for which the District Court has exclusive jurisdiction, the respondent failed to show it was plain and obvious the discrimination and consequential PESO damages claims were bound to fail, and the contested witness material is relevant to pleaded issues and not plainly scandalous or irrelevant such that pretrial expunction is justified.
29 Nov 2024

LAM HO YIN v. LI MING KEE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1927
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO5/2024

Anonymity summons dismissed because claimant failed to discharge the burden of providing clear and cogent evidence of a psychiatric disorder or exceptional circumstances; open justice principle prevails and anonymity would prejudice respondents where substantive factual disputes exist; any derogation must be strictly necessary and was not shown.
28 Nov 2024

陳詠琴對第一流行鋼琴教室有限公司

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2046
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO3/2024

Default judgment having been entered for claimant, the court assessed damages at HK$95,000 for injury to feelings and HK$48,000 for loss of earnings (three months' salary). The court adjusted Vento bands by converting 2002 GBP to HKD using the 2002 exchange rate and then applying Hong Kong CPI inflation to 2024. The discriminatory act was a single but serious incident proximate to notification of disability; conduct of respondent in litigating without defence and failing to apologise constituted special circumstances justifying an order for costs. Interest rates and calculation periods were s…
10 Oct 2024

TEMPOROSA, MA. CARLA ARANGOTE, THE EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF GUTING, JOAN SARMIENTO, DECEASED v. CHOY CHIU YEE RITA

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1589
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO13/2019

Court held respondent failed to discharge burden to show the actions were frivolous or that special circumstances existed. The claimant's reliance on hearsay and limited contemporaneous documents did not make the claims manifestly misconceived given the evidential context and need to avoid hindsight. However, because the employment claim overlapped substantially and the claimant lost that claim, the court exercised discretion to vary the costs nisi and ordered the claimant to pay 25% of the costs of the consolidated actions with certificate for counsel, taxed party and party if not agreed; no…