Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Employer identity

Legal area

Court

29 Jun 2017

WONG KIT YEE for herself and on behalf of other dependants of YEUNG CHUN HO, deceased v. CAPITAL GLOBE LTD (In Liquidation) AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG KIT YEE for herself and on behalf of other dependants of YEUNG CHUN HO, deceased v. CAPITAL GLOBE LTD (In Liquidation) AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC704/2012

The 2nd respondent's application to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed and the costs order nisi was made absolute because it was reasonable for the applicant to sue and continue against the 1st and 2nd respondents given documentary evidence and conduct by the 1st respondent that held itself out as employer; the 2nd respondent's interests aligned with the 1st and it adopted the same defences and lost on key issues, making it unreasonable to deprive the applicant of costs; the 4th respondent properly joined to protect public funds; fairness required the applicant not to bear the 2nd respon…
14 Apr 2011

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA954/2005

The court found that the Amsterdam meeting produced binding terms which were formally recorded in the 12 March 1999 letter but did not include any guarantee of a minimum annual bonus of US$200,000 nor any one-year notice term; bonuses were contractual and payable only by reference to the Amsterdam/12 March formula based on actual billings; HCL Technologies (Hong Kong) Limited alone was the employer; plaintiff was entitled to specified bonus sums for FY1999-2002 and a assessed further bonus to Feb 2004, payment in lieu of 3 months' notice, and miscellaneous sums; Shiv Nadar was not personally…
28 Jun 2010

CHIN KWOK CHUNG TONY v. HELLO PARTNER (INTERNATIONAL) CO LTD

Citation

CHIN KWOK CHUNG TONY v. HELLO PARTNER (INTERNATIONAL) CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1389/2009

On the evidence the business enterprise was conceived and operated as a Guangzhou company (GZHP) and the plaintiff's employment related to that entity; the plaintiff's purported resignation on 11 June 2007 was unequivocally rejected and his employment was effectively terminated by announcement of GZHP on 26-27 June 2007; however the plaintiff sued HPI in Hong Kong and the court dismissed the claim against HPI and awarded costs to HPI (the court accepted that any contractual entitlements would have been owed by GZHP rather than HPI).
10 Oct 2006

TSANG KWONG TONG v. TENNILLE DECORATION & DESIGN LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TSANG KWONG TONG v. TENNILLE DECORATION & DESIGN LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV42/2006

The Court upheld the trial judge's factual finding that the 1st respondent was the employer because the judge was entitled to accept the 3rd respondent's evidence after seeing the witnesses and there was no basis for appellate interference; on quantum, although the trial judge applied the wrong test regarding certificate cancellation, the Court reviewed the Board's 18% assessment against the total available evidence and the claimant's special circumstances under s.9(1A) and found 18% not inappropriate, so the appeal was dismissed and the Board's assessment was upheld.
27 Jan 2006

MOHAMMED SHABIR v. MARBOLOY ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

MOHAMMED SHABIR v. MARBOLOY ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI777/2004

The application was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for disclosure: the proposed order was impermissibly vague and oppressive as it did not distinguish responsibilities between distinct defendants or specify precise periods; the documents sought did not relate to a matter in issue as against the defendant who had conceded employment; and no justified inference of missing documents arose from alleged inconsistencies.
5 Nov 2004

REYES ELENA E v. UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, MARINE SECURITY GUARD DETACHMENT, AMERICAN CONSULATE GENERAL, HONG KONG

Citation

REYES ELENA E v. UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, MARINE SECURITY GUARD DETACHMENT, AMERICAN CONSULATE GENERAL, HONG KONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA87/2004

Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the Tribunal's finding that individual service members were the employers (and not the Defendant) was unsupported or based on a misapprehension of key exhibits (C-7, C-8, C-10) and therefore constituted an error of law; additionally the time-bar defence was defeated by the Commissioner for Labour's extension under Section 31N and the issue of continuity of employment was at least arguable.
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

CACV17/2003

The Court upheld the trial judges factual findings that the 2nd defendant sub-subcontracted labour and small parts to the 3rd defendant who recruited, supervised and paid the plaintiff, and that the short-term special arrangement did not alter that underlying relationship; consequently the 3rd defendant was the plaintiffs employer. Further, on statutory interpretation of s.24 read with s.16G, the 1st defendant, as principal contractor in relation to the works, had locus to lodge the objection and therefore the plaintiffs estoppel argument failed.

Hong Kong Case Law

WONG KIT YEE for herself and on behalf of other dependants of YEUNG CHUN HO, deceased v. CAPITAL GLOBE LTD (In Liquidation) AND OTHERS

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

CHIN KWOK CHUNG TONY v. HELLO PARTNER (INTERNATIONAL) CO LTD

TSANG KWONG TONG v. TENNILLE DECORATION & DESIGN LTD AND OTHERS

MOHAMMED SHABIR v. MARBOLOY ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

REYES ELENA E v. UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, MARINE SECURITY GUARD DETACHMENT, AMERICAN CONSULATE GENERAL, HONG KONG

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