20 Feb 2019
Court found claimant was an employee of respondent based on indicia of employment, accepted claimant's account of the accident occurring in the course of employment, held respondent liable under the Employees Compensation Ordinance and awarded compensation totaling HKD 116,021 plus interest and costs in accordance with statutory provisions and the assessment certificate.
14 Sept 2015
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.
29 Dec 2011
On the balance of probabilities the Court preferred the Applicant's evidence and found he was employed by the Respondent and injured by the blade of an electric saw in the course of his employment; the Respondent is liable under Sections 9, 10 and 10A of the Employees Compensation Ordinance and the Applicant is entitled to $149,108 plus interest and costs.
20 Feb 2002
On a holistic balancing of factors the court found the Applicant was not an employee: the Respondents had little control or integration over his day‑to‑day work, the Applicant supplied and managed workers, remuneration was tied to quantity of work with potential for profit or loss, Form 2s were filled in mistakenly and not determinative; therefore the relationship was a contract for service and the Applicant's claims under the Employees Compensation Ordinance were dismissed.