Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Employer-employee status

Legal area

Court

5 Apr 2024

CHOI KAM WING v. SKY DRAGON INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKDC 483
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC984/2021

On the whole evidence — contemporaneous documents (organisation chart, CEDD nomination and appointment documents, attendance records showing employee number and position under Kwan On), the Applicant's unchallenged testimony that he took instructions only from 2nd Respondent staff, and absence of any evidential support from the 2nd Respondent for the contrary suggestion — the 2nd Respondent was the Applicant's employer at the time of the accident. The Form 2 and a cheque drawn by the 1st Respondent were insufficient to displace that conclusion. Therefore the 2nd Respondent is liable to pay st…
15 Nov 2021

FENG JIANZHU v. HO SZE YEE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1355
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2613/2018

On the balance of all indicia the applicant was an employee of R1: R1 provided major tools and equipment, paid the applicant's wages in cash and assumed financial risk of payment, exercised operational control and gave instructions, and R1 charged the principal for the project; R2 was not employer nor principal contractor under s24 ECO. Accordingly R1 is liable to pay statutory compensation and costs as assessed.
16 Aug 2021

MAN YING KIT 對 KAM TAI ENTERPRISE (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 912
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC591/2020

The court found service was properly effected at the addresses shown in the company's filings and the default judgment was a regular judgment; the respondent's explanations were not credible and it failed to demonstrate a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, particularly given the prior Labour Tribunal order against the respondent; accordingly the respondent's application to set aside the default judgment was refused.
13 Dec 2019

FENG JIANZHU v. HO SZE YEE

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1687
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2613/2018

On the evidence before the court the respondent’s allegations, if proved, disclosed at least a prima facie arguable case that Chan was the applicant’s employer; factual disputes on control and supervision could not be resolved on affidavit at interlocutory stage and the high threshold of showing the intended claim was bound to fail was not met; prejudice to Chan did not amount to special circumstances to refuse joinder, so Chan must be joined and the amendment permitted.
11 Dec 2018

CHU KA WAI v. HOP HING FURNITURE CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1520
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI304/2016

The court found on credibility and documentary evidence that Ying Fat (Aden) was the sole employer; the plaintiff's account was rejected as unreliable; the act of trimming/removing jackfruits was a personal frolic outside the course of employment; occupiers' liability did not apply; therefore defendants were not liable and the claim was dismissed.
7 Jun 2018

CHAN CHO TAK v. NG SHING LEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1284
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI491/2015

On the balance of probabilities the court found Ng was an employee acting within the scope of his employment based on his police statement, admissions by Haobang's manager and contract terms; Haobang therefore vicariously liable for Ng's negligence; contributory negligence not established; damages assessed and awarded accordingly.
20 Jan 2017

林永平對滙川有限公司及另二人

Citation

林永平對滙川有限公司及另二人
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1228/2013

The court accepted the claimant's and corroborating evidence that the accident occurred at the named site on 13 July 2012 in the course of employment; found the claimant was employed by Cheng Yik Wah trading as 華記工程; held both 滙川 (Meet Stream) and 生興 (Sang Hing) met the definition of principal contractors under s24 and therefore are liable to pay compensation; accepted permanent loss of earning capacity at 2.5% and awarded compensation calculated under ss9 and 10 with medical expenses, interest and costs as set out in the judgment.
8 Nov 2012

香港特別行政區訴池偉進

Citation

香港特別行政區訴池偉進
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA366/2011

The trial judge, having heard live evidence, accepted PW1's credible and consistent testimony corroborated by documents and inferred an employer–employee relationship; the prosecution therefore proved the offence under the Employment Ordinance beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant's complaints about evidence and witnesses did not demonstrate a miscarriage of justice, so the conviction must be upheld.
22 Oct 2012

MA KAM SING v. LAU SUI KEUNG t/a LAI CHING LIGHTING & ELECTRICAL CO

Citation

MA KAM SING v. LAU SUI KEUNG t/a LAI CHING LIGHTING & ELECTRICAL CO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1022/2010

Judge found applicant was the respondent's employee (respondent failed on employment defence) but respondent succeeded on causation; retaining counsel was justified, but part of the trial time was wasted on the unsuccessful defence denying employment status, so the respondent's recoverable costs were reduced to two-thirds with a counsel's certificate; costs for taxation to follow the same two-thirds order.
26 Apr 2012

WONG CHANSAMUT v. HUI CHING LUK AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG CHANSAMUT v. HUI CHING LUK AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI431/2010

The Temple, as owner and occupier, breached the non-delegable statutory duty under s3(4)(b) OLO by failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the competence of the contractor and that demolition work would be carried out safely; the Deceased was an employee of Hui; there was no contributory negligence by the Deceased; plaintiff entitled to damages assessed at HKD 443,260 (after credit for EC compensation).