Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Employees' compensation

Legal area

Court

5 Feb 2026

DELA ZILWA SUVENI DAMMIKA v. PIZZAEXPRESS (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2026] HKDC 186
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC655/2025

Interlocutory judgment having been entered the court estimated likely recoverable compensation using available evidence (monthly earnings $18,050; multiplier 72; 3% LOEC per respondent's medical report) producing section 9 entitlement of $38,988 and section 10A medical expenses of $6,438; balancing potential prejudice and applicant's hardship the court ordered an interim payment equal to the calculated section 9 minimum ($38,988) and awarded costs to the applicant.
16 Dec 2025

TSE KA LAM v. WAN ON TRANSPORTATION COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6261
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI951/2015

The court preferred the plaintiff's contemporaneous eyewitness evidence over TP1's out‑of‑court statement and the Marine Department report, found the defendant breached duties by failing to provide sufficient manpower, a licensed signaler and adequate communication such that the crane movement caused the plaintiff's fall, rejected contributory negligence, fixed defendant liability to the plaintiff, apportioned responsibility between defendant and TP1 at 50:50, and awarded damages totalling HK$1,207,831 with specified breakdown and interest; judgment was entered against TP1 and TP2 to the defe…
12 Dec 2025

FOK KA MING v. ST. JAMES\' SETTLEMENT

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2100
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC48/2025

Respondents proved exceptional circumstances and applicants acted unreasonably in rejecting reasonable pre-action offers and later accepting identical sanctioned payments without justification; therefore applicants are entitled to costs only up to the respective lapse dates of the pre-action offers and must pay respondents' costs thereafter.
12 Dec 2025

FONG FU HING v. SERCO GROUP (HK) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2100
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC171/2025

Respondents demonstrated exceptional circumstances and injustice in these fact-specific cases: applicants unreasonably rejected pre-action offers that were no worse than subsequently accepted sanctioned payments, there was no material change in medical condition between the pre-action offers and acceptance of sanctioned payments, and applicants failed to justify rejecting the offers; accordingly the court departed from the default Order 22 r20(1) costs order and ordered applicants to pay respondents' costs from the respective lapse dates.
4 Nov 2025

THAKURI DHUBRA v. M & H UNIVERSAL LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1886
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC804/2024

The court accepted the Applicant's monthly earnings as HK$20,000 and applied the unappealed Form 7 findings (1% loss; multiplier 72) to award HK$14,400 under s9. The claimed s10 (HK$50,133.33) and s10A (HK$2,990) awards were offset by employer payments during sick leave totalling HK$62,666.67 which exceeded those claims; therefore only the s9 amount of HK$14,400 was awarded. Interest and a costs order nisi were granted.
17 Oct 2025

CHAN MAN SAU v. 風采中學（教育評議會主辦）法團校董會

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1749
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC962/2022

O.22 r.23 mandates the imposition of specified costs consequences where a plaintiff fails to obtain a judgment better than sanctioned payments unless it would be unjust; the Applicant failed to beat valid sanctioned payments, his explanations did not show it would be unjust to apply r.23, and therefore the Costs Order Nisi was varied to impose indemnity taxation and interest for costs after the specified cut-off dates, direct sanctioned payments to be paid out as ordered, and direct that the Respondent's costs be taxed together before the same Master.
3 Sept 2025

KHAN FAROOQ AHMED v. DELIVERY HERO FOOD HONG KONG LTD formerly known as ROCKET FOOD LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4030
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI65/2022

The defendant breached its duty of care by operating an unsafe system of work that allowed and effectively required riders to accept and to complete orders up to and during Typhoon Signal No.8, failed to provide an effective means to suspend operations or communicate warnings, and thereby exposed the plaintiff to unnecessary risk; the plaintiff was contributorily negligent (failure to check warnings/take shelter) to the extent of 20%, leaving defendant 80% liable.
30 Jul 2025

LI CHENGZU 對 HUI CHUNG NUEN t/a CHUNG MEI ENGINEERING CO

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1294
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1089/2011

The court refused to set aside the 29/11/2021 judgment and refused the related applications because the applicant deliberately absented himself, offered implausible medical excuses, failed to comply with procedural directions and the seven‑day rule, demonstrated no real prospect of obtaining further compensation on retrial, and the public interest in finality and efficient use of court resources weighed against rehearing; the request to revoke the court interpreter and to transfer the civil matter to criminal court were also denied.
24 Jul 2025

LAU LAN YING v. TOP HILL COMPANY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 894
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2941/2021

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the accident occurred at the alleged Access Path (Location 2); contemporaneous records and inconsistencies undermined her credibility; the Access Path was outside the workplace and not under defendants' control, so statutory duties under OSHO/CSSR and occupiers' duties under OLO did not apply; therefore there was no proven negligence or breach by D1 or D2 and both claims were dismissed.
18 Jul 2025

CAI CHANGBIAN v. TEMMEX ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1227
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1270/2023

Leave granted for applicant to accept the sanctioned payment out of time but, absent any special circumstances justifying departure from the usual costs rule and having found the applicant's refusal unreasonable and his likely claim below the paid-in sum, the applicant must pay the respondents' costs incurred after the expiry date on an indemnity basis; respondents pay applicant's costs up to the expiry date.