Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Compensation assessment

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2025

CHU WING NAM v. TIANYANG LOGISTICS LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1792
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC400/2024

The court accepted the Applicant's credible evidence and the Board's certified findings; applied the Sixth Schedule cap to monthly earnings for section 9, resulting in HK$35,600 x 48 x 1% = HK$17,088; applied the section 10 formula to actual monthly earnings and 179 sick days yielding HK$291,173; allowed documented medical expenses of HK$1,660 under section 10A; awarded interest from 9 December 2022 at half judgment rate until judgment and at judgment rate thereafter; ordered costs nisi against the Respondent.
23 Oct 2025

WEI XIAO KAI 對葉廣生 trading as 成興建築材料工程公司 (sued as a firm)及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1752
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2163/2021

Applicant's documentary and oral evidence was found unreliable; employer's contemporaneous records were accepted. Applicant's pre-accident monthly income assessed at $17,270 (= $1,570/day × 11 days). Permanent loss of earning capacity fixed at 3.75% (expert evidence). Reasonable sick leave fixed to 22/3/2021–18/8/2023 (880 days). Applying s9 and s10 formulas, deducting periodic payments received and allowing medical expenses under s10A, total award calculated at $223,928. Interest and provisional costs orders granted as stated.
25 Aug 2025

TANG YISU 對 SUNGUARD SECURITY CO LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1412
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1028/2021

Representation by the respondent was validly by the instructing law firm and its chosen counsel; on re‑assessment of the medical evidence the court confirmed the Committee's Form 9 finding of 3% permanent loss of earning capacity; applying s11 monthly wage $9,300, s9 multiplier 48 and 3% yields $13,392; s10 temporary incapacity for 865 days at 4/5 of monthly wage yields $214,520 (extended to 36 months by consent); s10A medical expenses subject to $300 daily cap yield $21,630; two health‑store purchases excluded as non‑medical; after deducting prior payments the respondent owes balance $113,97…
19 Aug 2025

KONG WAI LUN 對 CHEN XIONGJIANG及另二人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1401
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC30/2023

On the totality of the evidence the applicant was a day-rate employee of the first or third respondents (and the second respondent as the main contractor was liable under s.24(1) of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance). The provision or non-provision of specific tools did not preclude employment where fixed daily pay, lack of commercial risk and degree of control over daily tasks established an employment relationship; accordingly statutory compensation was payable as calculated by the court.
9 May 2025

TSE PO CHUEN 對 ST. JOHANNES COLLEGE LTD trading as ST. JOHANNES COLLEGE

Citation

[2025] HKDC 268
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1416/2021

Court found applicant not a credible witness, rejected the alleged oral agreement and accepted employer payroll evidence and expert medical opinion; therefore applicant's monthly wage fixed at HK$14,012.56 (with agreed increase to HK$15,400 from 1 Aug 2019), Form 9 re-assessment was not overturned, loss of earning capacity fixed at 6% (4% orthopaedic + 2% psychiatric), incapacity period fixed at 24 months, and net award calculated at HK$49,086 plus interest with costs in favour of applicant.
4 Dec 2024

CAI HANXIANG 對劉德育

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1456
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC876/2022

Respondent was the applicant's employer because he recruited the applicant, provided transport and all tools, directed the work and made a payment described by the applicant as wages; the accident occurred in the course of employment based on uncontested evidence and medical reports; for short-term/temporary engagement s.11(2) was applied to compute pre-accident monthly earnings using prior similar employment, permanent loss of earning capacity properly assessed at 5%, and statutory heads of compensation under ss.9,10 and 10A were awarded resulting in a total of HK$266,403.36 plus interest an…
4 Oct 2024

CHAN MEI LING 對 SIMPLE LIFE BEAUTY (HK) LTD formerly known as HAIR CONCEPT GROUP LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1597
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC906/2022

In the absence of any contrary evidence from the respondent, the court accepted the Form 7 assessment under s16H and, applying the statutory scheme (including earnings cap and Schedule 3 limits), independently calculated compensation under ss9,10 and 10A, deducted prior payments, and awarded interest and costs accordingly.
27 Sept 2024

CAI WENCE 對 GO SHING DEMOLITION SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1571
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC418/2023

Court accepted Form 7 and the applicant's credible evidence; treated 'long casual' employment as functionally regular for s11 purposes and therefore set monthly earnings at HKD 29,900; applied Form 7's 8% permanent loss and 342 days temporary incapacity to compute statutory compensation under ss9 and 10, applied Schedule 3 to calculate medical expenses under s10A, deducted prior employer payment of HKD 3,000, and ordered respondent to pay HKD 439,956.55 plus interest and costs.
13 Sept 2024

LAM KONG SO, the Administrator of the estate of LAM CHUN SING, deceased 對 SHUI DIAN BAO AIR CONDITIONING LTD及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1507
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC448/2021

On the totality of credible evidence the injured person was not employed by the First Respondent but was a temporary employee under the control and direction of the Second Respondent at the time of the accident; the First Respondent was not the principal contractor under the Ordinance; compensation is to be calculated using a comparable monthly earnings base of HKD 13,311 under s11(2) producing a statutory award of HKD 213,168.04; because the Second Respondent caused the litigation and failed properly to disclose and misled the claimant, the court exercises its discretion to order the Second…
2 Jul 2024

林金群對林家孝及另三人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1075
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2585/2021

R2 (SINGLE MINDED CATERERS LIMITED trading as CATEE) was the sole employer at the time of the accident. R1 (director) was not the employer by virtue of directorship and managerial role, and R3 (XOLO) was not the employer because payroll receipts and contemporaneous evidence showed CATEE (R2) employed and paid the applicant and there was no evidence of shared premises or other indicia of joint employment. Compensation was assessed on the s9/s10/s10A findings in Form 9 and awarded accordingly.