Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proof of employment

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2019

趙同輝對李寬

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1625
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC367/2018

The court found the respondent was not the applicant's employer because documentary evidence and credible testimony showed 雅舍 continued to be responsible for the renovation, payments to and dealings with 雅舍 and its representatives continued, the applicant's assertions of abandonment were not credible, and owner participation in directing work did not convert the owner into the employer; burden to prove employment by respondent was not discharged.
8 Nov 2019

LIN JINSHUI 對 WONG KAM CHEUNG t/a WAH CHEUNG (DECORATION) ENG.

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1484
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1330/2017

Court found respondent was the employer because he directly agreed terms of work and pay with the applicant, made promises and payments, participated in post-injury negotiations and never disclaimed employer status until faced with prosecution; accordingly respondent is liable under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance to pay the statutory sums calculated under ss.9 and 10.
17 Jan 2007

LAM MA YAM v. LEE KAI MING MICKEY t/a INFINITY CO

Citation

LAM MA YAM v. LEE KAI MING MICKEY t/a INFINITY CO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC615/2004

The court found on the evidence that the Respondent was the Applicant's employer and that the injury occurred in the course of employment; the statutory assessments under ss.9,10 and 10A were applied (2% loss of earning capacity, sick leave and medical expenses), payments already made were credited, and judgment for the calculated sum with interest and costs was entered for the Applicant.
25 Apr 2003

TSE WA LUNG v. MATSUDEN ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TSE WA LUNG v. MATSUDEN ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1109/2000

On the balance of probabilities the 5th Respondent employed the Applicant because the 5th Respondent told the Labour Department he was the employer, neither the 5th Respondent nor the Applicant appeared on R2's payroll for the relevant period, invoices on R2 paper were used at the suggestion of R3 for accounting convenience and did not reflect true employment, and evidence showed R5 directly dealt with and paid the Applicant.

Hong Kong Case Law

趙同輝 對 李寬

LIN JINSHUI 對 WONG KAM CHEUNG t/a WAH CHEUNG (DECORATION) ENG.

LAM MA YAM v. LEE KAI MING MICKEY t/a INFINITY CO

TSE WA LUNG v. MATSUDEN ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS

趙同輝對李寬