Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Employment status

Legal area

Court

23 Apr 2026

WONG KA CHUN v. SIU WAH TRANSPORTATION LTD

Citation

[2026] HKDC 675
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2547/2022

On the totality of evidence the court found applicant was an employee of subcontractor Li (control, pay arrangements, supervision by Li, lack of MPF/tax and payroll linkage with respondent) and respondent was a principal contractor under s24(1); therefore respondent is liable to pay statutory compensation calculated as HKD17,280 (s9) + HKD44,438 (s10) + HKD360 (s10A) = HKD62,078 plus interest and costs.
20 Jan 2026

觀乃信對誠信環保工程有限公司及另一人

Citation

[2026] HKDC 174
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2708/2023

The court found the interrogatories sought were sufficiently relevant to the core issue of employment status and necessary to enable proper preparation and to save costs; it therefore ordered the specified interrogatories to be served and answered by sworn affidavit within the prescribed periods and rejected the unsigned statement as inadmissible evidence.
28 Nov 2025

WONG WAI HONG 對 LEUNG HOI TONG及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1978
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2326/2021

On credibility and evidence the court accepted applicant was an employee of the first respondent at all material times because of employer control, payment pattern, provision of tools/materials, and lack of cogent contrary evidence; under s11(2) the proper monthly income base was HK$1,500×17 days = HK$25,500; the court accepted the Fund Board orthopaedic expert's 3% LOEC and the psychiatric expert's 3% and combined those to 6% LOEC; applicant could return to pre-injury work so the Hong Kong Paper Mills formula did not apply; applying the statutory multipliers and periods produced awards of HK…
27 Nov 2025

HUI TO YING v. SUN KWONG MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1790
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1759/2021

Applying the indicia in Poon Chau Nam, the court found the applicant was an employee because he was paid a fixed daily rate, worked under the 1st respondent's direction and supervision, had no opportunity to profit or suffer loss from projects, did not hire helpers, and worked jointly with the 1st respondent on site; therefore statutory compensation under ss 9, 10 and 10A was payable and s10(5) limits periodical payments to 36 months (944 days), with agreed loss rate 2.5% and agreed daily wage and attendance figures determining quantum.
5 Nov 2025

TSANG CHI SHING RAYMOND v. CHINA INTERNATIONAL FINANCE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5017
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA35/2024

The application to re-open was dismissed because the judge did not overlook the fourth ground (contemporaneous messages supported the finding that the 2nd Defendant was the employer), the failure to draw up the order was the 2nd Defendant's responsibility and cannot justify re-opening absent exceptional circumstances, and the high threshold to disturb Labour Tribunal factual findings was not met.
19 Aug 2025

KONG WAI LUN 對 CHEN XIONGJIANG及另二人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1401
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC30/2023

On the totality of the evidence the applicant was a day-rate employee of the first or third respondents (and the second respondent as the main contractor was liable under s.24(1) of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance). The provision or non-provision of specific tools did not preclude employment where fixed daily pay, lack of commercial risk and degree of control over daily tasks established an employment relationship; accordingly statutory compensation was payable as calculated by the court.
26 Feb 2025

HE YU FEI v. XIONG XINXI trading as TAILOR-MADE FURNITURE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 302
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1181/2022

Applicant was an employee of the 1st Respondent based on consistent evidence that the 1st Respondent alone dealt with him, used the trade name Tailor-Made Furniture at the premises, gave instructions, provided materials, agreed a fixed daily wage (HK$1,350), arranged and acknowledged payments and initially accepted liability; the Form 9 assessment of 492 days was not rebutted by the Respondents and remains effective for Section 10 calculations; award computed accordingly under ECO Sections 9, 10 and 10A and reduced by prior payment.
4 Dec 2024

CAI HANXIANG 對劉德育

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1456
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC876/2022

Respondent was the applicant's employer because he recruited the applicant, provided transport and all tools, directed the work and made a payment described by the applicant as wages; the accident occurred in the course of employment based on uncontested evidence and medical reports; for short-term/temporary engagement s.11(2) was applied to compute pre-accident monthly earnings using prior similar employment, permanent loss of earning capacity properly assessed at 5%, and statutory heads of compensation under ss.9,10 and 10A were awarded resulting in a total of HK$266,403.36 plus interest an…
15 Nov 2024

GURUNG, SANJAYA MAN v. DELIVEROO HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1932
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1738/2023

Applying the multifactorial indicia of employment to the undisputed Supplier Agreement and facts, the relationship was plainly and obviously that of an independent contractor not an employee; consequently the employees' compensation claim had no real prospect of success and was struck out. Separately, the Applicant was estopped/abusing process because he already accepted the maximum voluntary insurance payment, so pursuing employees' compensation would be vexatious and inconsistent with the prior convention, justifying strike out and costs against the Applicant.
17 Oct 2024

徐貴寧對姚金顯經營漢記業務及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2443
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA19/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any legal error in the Labour Tribunal adjudicator's decision; the High Court will not overturn the adjudicator's factual findings (that the claimant worked on 2-4 June and that an agency relationship made the second defendant liable) absent a shown legal error.