Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Victimisation

Legal area

Court

4 Mar 2024

NG HON SUM 對 LAM MAN LUNG及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 323
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO7/2023

The amended statement of claim failed to disclose any reasonable cause under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance because the alleged conduct consisted of vulgar insults and workplace complaints devoid of a sexual element, and any references to claimant's wife or mother did not make the claimant the object of sexual advances or attraction; the victimisation allegation about withholding a firearm did not allege differential treatment grounded in sex. Accordingly the court granted the strike‑out application and dismissed the claimant's amended claim against the first respondent.
18 Jan 2022

C v. THE CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2022] HKDC 77
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO6/2017

The dismissal of the claimant's application and discontinuation were based on a legitimate academic assessment that she could not reasonably complete four long‑overdue assignments within the two‑month extension sought; the reference to medical history was explanatory and consolatory, not an operative reason; the MSP and 5.4 discretion are justified; consequently there was no direct or indirect discrimination or victimisation and all claims fail.
16 Dec 2020

KWONG LAI YAN v. SCOTT BINGHAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 1193
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO12/2019

The court struck out the claimant's sexual harassment claim against the 1st respondent as plainly time-barred and held it was not just and equitable under s86(3) to permit the out-of-time claim given delay, lack of credible explanation and prejudice; consequently the vicarious liability claim against the 2nd respondent for that harassment was struck out; however the employer victimisation claim against the 2nd respondent was allowed to proceed because it could constitute an act extending over a period under s86(5)(b) and it was not plain and obvious that it was time-barred; leave to amend ple…
30 Dec 2019

秦秀清對長鴻鋁窗裝飾工程有限公司

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1749
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO3/2018

Judge accepted applicant's credible medical and contemporaneous documentary evidence and rejected respondent's evidence and explanations; found respondent pressured applicant to resign and dismissed her because of pregnancy thus breaching SDO s8 and s11(2); found victimisation under SDO s9 and DDO s7(1) arising from respondent's refusal to provide severance payment and employment certificate after complaints; did not find primary disability discrimination under DDO s6 because respondent lacked knowledge of miscarriage before dismissal; awarded declaratory relief, damages (injury to feelings H…
13 Apr 2017

D v. S AND ANOTHER

Citation

D v. S AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO3/2016

The court held that 'special circumstances' under s.73B(3) are not limited to litigation conduct and may include pre‑ and post‑proceedings conduct; where respondents engage in oppressive conduct and delay or obstruct settlement (here to protect a defendant's criminal trial) and the underlying conduct is unlawful and supported by overwhelming evidence, the court may depart from the no‑costs rule and award costs against respondents, including indemnity costs with a counsel certificate.
15 Jul 2016

PETER EDWARD REES JORDAN v. THE HONG KONG ACADEMY FOR PERFORMING ARTS AND ANOTHER

Citation

PETER EDWARD REES JORDAN v. THE HONG KONG ACADEMY FOR PERFORMING ARTS AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO4/2015

On the pleaded material the claim cannot be struck out or summarily determined: the amended notice reasonably permits a reading that the alleged incidents form an interlinked continuing victimising campaign such that s86(5)(b) may apply; causation and unlawfulness are factual matters for trial; ss46-47 operate as a matter of law to permit employer and/or employee liability; therefore the strike out/summary determination application fails.
1 Nov 2012

DR. ALICE LI MIU LING v. THE HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY

Citation

DR. ALICE LI MIU LING v. THE HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO1/2004

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the alleged acts of sexual harassment occurred as pleaded and/or were unwelcome; allegations lacked corroboration, suffered delay and material inconsistencies; the University had taken reasonably practicable preventative measures under SDO s46(3) and its non-renewal decision was supported by objective performance and interpersonal grounds; victimisation not established because protected acts were not shown to be known to decision-makers at the relevant time; the University complied with the amended PDPO enforcement notice and exer…
4 Nov 2011

SIT KA YIN PRISCILLA v. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION AND OTHERS

Citation

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

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1117/2011

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; the trial judge's factual findings that the dismissal was for performance-related reasons and not motivated by sex or disability were supported by evidence and entitled to deference; the judge's conclusion that the claim was frivolous justified the costs orders under ss73B(3) and 73C(3) DCO.
11 Feb 2010

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

Plaintiff was a person under disability as defined by the DDO, but on the facts the dismissal and other adverse treatments were caused by persistent sub-standard work performance and breakdown in working relationship, not by disability or sex; comparator disputes were avoided by focusing on causation; victimisation not established; destruction of the 911 memo was held to be an innocent mistake and did not undermine the defence.
23 Oct 2007

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

Leave to amend was refused in substance because the proposed amendments and joinder were made after substantial unexplained delay, advanced new causes now time barred, repeatedly pleaded matters that were evidential rather than material facts, and raised allegations (forgery, conspiracy, criminal offences) not for determination in SDO/DDO proceedings; limited amendments that clarified knowledge of disability and certain comparator references were permitted; joinder of proposed 4th–12th defendants was refused given vicarious liability of employer and prejudice from delay.