Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Employee status

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2025

MA CHUN SHING v. CHUNG BEN FOOD CO. LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1725
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2281/2022

The accident occurred as described and caused the applicant's mid-shaft right femur fracture; on a holistic assessment of the working relationship (fixed salary, no profit/loss exposure, lack of managerial or substitution responsibility, respondent's control over tasks and provision of vehicle and equipment, and reimbursement of expenses) the applicant was an employee at the time of the accident; the Discharge Agreement did not alter the pre-accident relationship and the applicant's duress/non est factum claim was not proved; the single joint medical expert's assessment of 1.5% whole-person p…
9 Sept 2025

CHOW KAT CHEUNG 對 ROAD EASY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1486
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC467/2021

Court accepted applicant was an employee of respondent based on indicia (control, payment pattern, use of respondent vehicle, director as supervisor) and respondent's failure to file evidence; monthly earnings assessed at HK$21,140 (10‑month average as more favourable); permanent loss accepted at 1%; sick absence 651 days accepted; awarded statutory compensation calculated from those figures and deducted amounts already paid.
16 Sept 2024

LEE CHEUNG CHIT v. WONG CHUN WA t/a OH TIN LOGISTICS COMPANY

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1311
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC192/2023

Weighing all indicia and contractual terms (control, mandatory hours, integration, provision of vehicle, regular pay, prohibition on subcontracting), the relationship was, as a matter of overall impression, one of employment; the Declaration labeling the worker a contractor is disregarded and respondent is liable under the ECO; compensation calculated accordingly.
28 Dec 2023

CHAN YUK PING v. NGAN CHO LIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1835
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC322/2020

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the applicant's and independent clerk's testimony and contemporaneous time card, rejected respondents' oral denials as not credible or supported by documents, found joint employment by R1 and R2 from August 2018, found the accident at Tit Hang Village Workshop on 26 December 2018 caused by a forklift wheel rolling over the applicant's right foot, accepted monthly earnings HK$15,600 and certified sick leave of 17 months; awarded statutory compensation under ss.9,10 and 10A ECO subject to deductions for payments already received, and awarded co…
8 Aug 2023

HO WAI KEUNG v. BILLION RICH INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCA 929
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV15/2022

The Court upheld the trial judge's factual finding that the Applicant was not an employee of the Respondent on 13 December 2015: the written Borrowing Confirmation/Repayment Confirmation operated from 1 October 2015 to convert the relationship into one where Applicant borrowed site, tools and truck and carried on business on his own account, and the trial judge's evaluation of the evidence and credibility was within appellate bounds; therefore the claim under the Employees Compensation Ordinance failed.
13 Jul 2023

HUNG SHING KEUNG 對梁潤生 t/a 興旺搬屋公司

Citation

[2023] HKDC 918
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2233/2021

On the evidence, the applicant was an employee at the time of the accident (respondent's own filings and admissions and indicia of control and payment); respondent failed to prove deliberate self-harm or serious and wilful misconduct; applicant's daily wage accepted at HK$1,100 and monthly working days fixed at 26 (statistical average) giving monthly income HK$28,600; orthopaedic expert unchallenged assessed permanent loss of earning capacity at 3%; applying statutory formulas yields awards of HK$61,776 (s9), HK$296,677.33 (s10) and HK$1,024 (s10A) less HK$1,000 already paid, total HK$358,477…
22 Apr 2022

TSUI MING KI v. AMAN GROUP LTD t/a AMAN MOVING SERVICES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 306
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2240/2019

Applicant failed to prove the alleged May 2016 employment agreement binding the 1st respondent because Mr Lai lacked actual or apparent authority, was not shown to be a de facto director, and ratification was not pleaded or proved; moreover the factual indicia did not establish an employment relationship on the balance of probabilities; therefore the amended application is dismissed.
11 Jun 2021

NUR ALAM v. CHENG TSZ KIN t/a K & Y TRANSPORT

Citation

[2021] HKDC 701
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1210/2017

Applicant was an employee based on contemporaneous documentary evidence and Whatsapp/voice instructions from respondent; driver was respondent's employee; court exercised discretion under s2(2) ECO to treat illegal employment as valid because the work was lawful; accepted Board's Form 7 under s16H; calculated compensation under s9 (HK$524,160) and s10 extended under s10(5) to 36 months (HK$374,400), deducted payments already received (HK$30,000), awarded interest and costs nisi accordingly.
11 Jan 2021

CHEUNG CHI PING v. KING TIN ENGINEERING & TRANSPORTATION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKDC 12
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1321/2018

On evaluation of contemporaneous documentary evidence and witness credibility the court found the applicant was not an employee of the 2nd respondent on 26 September 2016; therefore statutory employees compensation did not arise and the claim was dismissed. The court held added peril and serious wilful misconduct defences did not assist respondents; alternatively, if liability were made out the correct calculations would adopt monthly earnings of HK$4,000 and a 4% loss of earning capacity leading to specified awards.
23 Sept 2019

WU LIYANG 對 SHUN CHEONG INDUSTRIAL (HK) CO LTD 及另二人

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1170
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC669/2015

Applying the multi‑factorial tests and overall impression of the working relationship the court found on the balance of probabilities that the claimant was an employee at the time of the accident, but there was insufficient evidence to identify the first or second respondents as his employer; accordingly the claimant's compensation claim against those respondents was dismissed though the court assessed the quantum of loss.