Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Employer/employee status

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2025

熊明泉對吳樂雄

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1683
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1802/2023

On the balance of probabilities the court found the applicant was an employee: respondent exercised control over work allocation and hours, supplied materials and tools, paid the applicant by daily wage evidenced by receipts and WhatsApp records, and acted to process the Form 2; s5(4) applied to treat the accident as in the course of employment; applicant's monthly earnings were calculated from an accepted daily wage of HK$1,600 and average working days to HK$38,400; applying statutory formulas produced awards under s9 (HK$17,088), s10 (HK$130,048) and s10A (HK$1,260) totaling HK$148,396, whi…
17 Apr 2025

HE YU FEI v. XIONG XINXI t/a TAILOR-MADE FURNITURE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 570
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1181/2022

The Sanctioned Offer complied with Order 22 Rule 5; the 1st Respondent failed to achieve a better outcome than the offer and identified no factors making it unjust to apply Order 22 Rule 24; accordingly the Court ordered indemnity costs from 9 May 2024 with enhanced interest of 0.5% above judgment rate and granted a Sanderson order obliging the 1st Respondent to pay the 2nd Respondent's costs because the 1st Respondent's conduct caused the reasonable joinder of the 2nd Respondent.
14 Sept 2015

HUNG CHIU KWAN DANKA v. LUI CHI MUN TEDDY formerly t/a SAMMY EXHIBITION DESIGN PRODUCTION CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUNG CHIU KWAN DANKA v. LUI CHI MUN TEDDY formerly t/a SAMMY EXHIBITION DESIGN PRODUCTION CO AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC703/2012

On the civil standard the Applicant was an employee of the 1st Respondent based on objective factors (daily wage, prescribed hours, lack of equipment, control and instruction by 1st Respondent); the injury arose in the course of that employment; the 2nd Respondent was not the Applicant's employer; the Board's 2% assessment was increased to 3% loss of earning capacity and statutory compensation and interest were awarded accordingly; costs ordered as set out.
27 Oct 2004

CHAN SIK PAN v. WYLAM’S SERVICE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN SIK PAN v. WYLAM’S SERVICE LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV66/2003

The court upheld the trial judge's factual findings that the 3rd defendant was the plaintiff's immediate employer because the 3rd defendant recruited, supervised, paid and controlled the workers and the short-term special arrangement did not alter the underlying subcontracting relationship; further, for the purposes of s.16G the term 'employer' is to be read as including the principal contractor under s.24, so the 1st defendant had locus to object and the plaintiff's estoppel plea failed.
10 May 1999

NG SIU CHAU v. HKSAR

Citation

NG SIU CHAU v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC11/1999

The Court certified the question whether apprentice jockeys are employees of the Jockey Club (and therefore public servants) as one of great and general importance and held the point to be reasonably arguable; accordingly the Court granted leave to appeal so the appellant may advance the contention that, if apprentice jockeys are not employees/public servants, the convictions under s.4(1)(a) cannot stand.

Hong Kong Case Law

熊明泉 對 吳樂雄

HE YU FEI v. XIONG XINXI t/a TAILOR-MADE FURNITURE AND ANOTHER

HUNG CHIU KWAN DANKA v. LUI CHI MUN TEDDY formerly t/a SAMMY EXHIBITION DESIGN PRODUCTION CO AND ANOTHER

CHAN SIK PAN v. WYLAM’S SERVICE LTD AND OTHERS

NG SIU CHAU v. HKSAR

熊明泉對吳樂雄