Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sex discrimination ordinance

Legal area

Court

24 Jun 2022

TAN, SHAUN ZHI MING v. EUROMONEY INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR (JERSEY) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 622
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO4/2017

The court found no reliable evidence of a non-discriminatory reason for termination, the Respondent failed to disclose or justify the real grounds, and an inference of pro-female bias was properly drawn under the SDO; consequently the termination of employment on 21 June 2017 was unlawful sex discrimination in breach of SDO s.5(1)(a) and s.11(2)(c), entitling the Claimant to a declaration, damages and an apology order.
22 Jan 2019

LEUNG KWOK HUNG also known as “LONG HAIR”v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Citation

[2019] HKCA 56
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV34/2017

The notice of motion was dismissed because the questions as framed were confined to the specific prison context and did not raise statutory "great general or public importance" issues, and because the intended appeal was not reasonably arguable: the Court had already addressed the substantive arguments and held that conventional standards of appearance can be a relevant circumstance under the SDO and the applicant failed to establish less favourable treatment, rendering the Basic Law point dependent and unarguable.
14 Feb 2018

TAN, SHAUN ZHI MING v. EUROMONEY INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR (JERSEY) LTD

Citation

[2018] HKDC 185
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO4/2017

Claim struck out because the claimant cannot show the dismissal was 'but for' caused by his sex; documentary evidence establishes termination by payment in lieu under clause 14.3 and there is no evidence enabling an inference of sex discrimination from the investigation or employer conduct, so the SDO claim is obviously unsustainable and frivolous.
2 Apr 2009

SIT KA YIN PRISCILLA v. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION AND OTHERS

Citation

SIT KA YIN PRISCILLA v. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO11/1999

Judgment entered in the plaintiff's absence was set aside because credible medical evidence established she was genuinely unfit and hospitalised at the trial date, she has arguable prospects that justify a retrial, prejudice to defendants from delay is compensable by security and costs, and public policy favouring access to remedies under discrimination statutes warranted giving the plaintiff one final opportunity subject to stringent conditions.
23 Jun 2003

L v. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION AND OTHERS

Citation

L v. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO6/1999

The judge found the plaintiff's claims to be completely unmeritorious but not brought maliciously or frivolously, so s73B(3)(a) did not justify a costs order; however there were special circumstances in respect of the summons for discovery because of the plaintiff's dilatory and obstructive interlocutory conduct, and accordingly the defendants were entitled to the reserved costs of the summons for discovery (to be taxed if not agreed), but not to costs of the whole proceedings.
8 Aug 2000

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER v. CHAN WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER v. CHAN WAH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV11/2000

Leave was granted for the Equal Opportunities Commission to provide the Court with the services of counsel who will act as amicus curiae; counsel will be the amicus provided to the Court by the EOC, and the EOC is neither entitled to costs against any party nor liable in costs to any party.

Hong Kong Case Law

TAN, SHAUN ZHI MING v. EUROMONEY INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR (JERSEY) LTD

LEUNG KWOK HUNG also known as “LONG HAIR”v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

TAN, SHAUN ZHI MING v. EUROMONEY INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR (JERSEY) LTD

SIT KA YIN PRISCILLA v. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION AND OTHERS

L v. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION AND OTHERS

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER v. CHAN WAH AND OTHERS