Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unfair dismissal

Legal area

Court

23 Feb 2026

陳富健對嘉諾撒聖家書院法團校董會

Citation

[2026] HKDC 269
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4668/2023

The appeal was allowed because the 6 March 2025 filing amounted to substantive compliance with the 'unless' order: the document, though marked 'unfinished', was filed and served within the deadline, contained facts capable of supporting the unlawful dismissal claim, and the defects were remediable; therefore the hearing officer erred in striking out the claim on the grounds relied upon and should have allowed amendment.
6 Jan 2026

唐弋蘇對新衛保安服務有限公司

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 51
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA32/2025

The application for leave to appeal was revoked because the applicant failed to identify any legal error in the Tribunal's decision; the accusation of forgery was unsupported by evidence and did not constitute a proper basis for leave under s32(1); s35(2) restricts the Court from overturning factual findings absent the narrow exceptions identified in authority.
28 Nov 2024

陳詠琴對第一流行鋼琴教室有限公司

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2046
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO3/2024

Default judgment having been entered for claimant, the court assessed damages at HK$95,000 for injury to feelings and HK$48,000 for loss of earnings (three months' salary). The court adjusted Vento bands by converting 2002 GBP to HKD using the 2002 exchange rate and then applying Hong Kong CPI inflation to 2024. The discriminatory act was a single but serious incident proximate to notification of disability; conduct of respondent in litigating without defence and failing to apologise constituted special circumstances justifying an order for costs. Interest rates and calculation periods were s…
30 Sept 2024

覃錫鴻對 EXCEL ZONE LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2632
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA28/2024

Section 32P(3)(d) was inapplicable; the claimant had earlier accepted a full settlement including payment in lieu of notice which precluded the inconsistent later claim for 10 months' earnings; the Labour Tribunal was entitled to dismiss the later claim in the respondent's absence where the claim had no basis; consequently there was no arguable question of law and leave to appeal is refused.
25 Jul 2024

羅達廣對香港安全護衛服務有限公司

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2170
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA8/2024

The Court upheld the Tribunal: the uncontested facts (pre-filled patrol log, client complaint, and the employee's refusal to obey repeated instructions to return and explain) supported the Tribunal's factual findings and lawful conclusion that the employer had cause to summarily dismiss; no legal error or perverse finding of fact was shown and the refusal to admit further witness evidence did not render the decision unreasonable.
28 May 2024

符寶琼對律政司司長

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1302
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA19/2023

Leave to appeal is refused because the applicant's grounds challenge the tribunal's factual findings rather than raising an arguable question of law or jurisdiction; the tribunal's reasons were adequate as they addressed the substantial issues and showed consideration of the parties' primary arguments, so there is no basis for granting leave.
4 Nov 2022

覃錫鴻對金英子經營新世界食品公司

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3488
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA12/2022

The Court held the Tribunal correctly applied Lam Siu Wai: because the respondent terminated the contract by exercising contractual rights and paid the contractual notice period, the applicant had no legal basis to claim 12 months' compensation; accordingly the Tribunal did not err in law in striking out the compensation claim, and the costs order compensating the respondent for wages paid to employee witnesses was lawful under s28(1) of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance.
5 Aug 2022

甄雅娟對陳少傑經營C & L COMPANY

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2424
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCME1/2022

Leave to appeal refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the adjudicator made a legal error or exceeded jurisdiction; the application concerned factual matters (including the consensual settlement) and thus did not satisfy the statutory requirement that an appeal raise solely questions of law.
12 Feb 2019

吳書雅對恒生銀行有限公司

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 338
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA25/2018

The Labour Tribunal's factual findings that the dismissal was justified (breach of the insurance agent code by submitting signed blank forms) and that the claimant failed to prove any loss from reference checks were not shown to involve an error of law or excess of jurisdiction; accordingly there was no merit or legal basis to grant leave to appeal and the application was dismissed.
8 Aug 2018

HUI KING FAI v. THE HONG KONG COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SERVICE

Citation

[2018] HKCA 522
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP60/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because the grounds advanced were not argued below and were fact-and-evidence sensitive; the Tribunal made specific findings that the dismissal was due to conduct damaging mutual trust and not because of protected acts under s72B, and the claimant failed to demonstrate any extinguishing or reduction of rights under the Employment Ordinance, so there was no arguable point of law of general public importance.