Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Employee v independent contractor

Legal area

Court

15 Feb 2024

MOHAMMAD AKHTAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHEONG formerly trading as CHUN LOK TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

Citation

[2024] HKDC 251
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC283/2022

Court found employment relationship on overall impression: high degree of control by Respondent, Respondent provided the lorry and business documents, fixed monthly remuneration with no profit opportunity, tax treatment and integration into Respondent's operations. Alleged substitute was rejected as afterthought and unsupported. Therefore Applicant entitled to compensation under ss 9,10,10A Cap.282. For quantum Court adopted Sixth Schedule cap of HK$30,530 (lesser than actual earnings), multiplier 72, 0.5% permanent loss -> HK$10,990.80; temporary incapacity 2.13 months -> HK$59,640; medical…
23 Aug 2023

TSE CHIU v. 郭健 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 970
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV109/2021

The trial judge's factual findings that the Applicant was an employee (not an independent contractor) and that the 2nd Respondent was the Applicant's employer at the time of the accident were open to the judge on the evidence; the appellate court will not disturb those findings absent a legal misdirection or perverse conclusion, and therefore the 2nd Respondent's appeal is dismissed and the compensation award stands.
3 Aug 2023

林枝年對林阮求

Citation

[2023] HKCA 920
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV319/2021

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's factual finding—that the applicant was the respondent's employee at the time of the accident—was reasonably open on the evidence and not plainly wrong; the Court of Appeal will not admit the respondent's fresh evidence or disturb credibility findings absent a clear error.
27 Apr 2022

TSE CHIU v. 郭健 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 576
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV109/2021

Although the court was satisfied that the appellant demonstrated impecuniosity or that the respondent would face difficulty or delay in enforcing a costs order, the appellant advanced a sufficiently strong ground of appeal on a preliminary view (that he acted only as an officer/director and not as a co-employer) which operated as a countervailing factor; accordingly security for costs was not ordered and the summons for security for costs was dismissed.
21 Dec 2021

MAN YUK TAI (萬玉銻) for herself and on behalf of the members of the family of CHUNG HOK LUN (鍾學麟), deceased v. CLIVE DOUGLAS WOLSTENCROFT

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1588
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2796/2018

On balance of probability the deceased was an employee: he was paid a daily wage, submitted days worked for payment, was reimbursed for materials, did not supply a pre‑contract quotation for the House works, bore no financial risk, did not hire independent workers, and the respondent's late alternative defence was unsupported and prejudicial; therefore liability under ECO established.
19 Feb 2021

TSE CHIU v. 郭健 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKDC 191
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1141/2018

On the totality of the Poon Chau Nam indicia the claimant was an employee of the 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent (not of the 1st respondent): respondents exercised significant control, supplied and maintained the tractor, paid regular monthly remuneration characterized in company documents as wages, reimbursed expenses and absorbed payment risk; therefore the accident occurred in the course of employment and statutory compensation under Cap 282 is payable to the claimant.
17 Feb 2017

陸浩光 v. 海天企業（國際）有限公司

Citation

陸浩光 v. 海天企業（國際）有限公司
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC278/2014

The 1st Applicant was not an employee of the Respondent but a building sub-contractor; his account of the alleged 22 May 2012 accident was inherently incredible and contradicted by contemporaneous statements, so no compensable work accident was found for him; although the 2nd Applicant was found to have been injured on 24 February 2012, the parties had agreed that the 2nd Applicant's employment status followed the court's ruling on the 1st Applicant, so both applications were dismissed. The employment relationship was determined by applying the multi-factorial Poon test and assessing credibil…
17 Feb 2017

LUK SHUN KWONG v. HOI TIN ENTERPRISE INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

LUK SHUN KWONG v. HOI TIN ENTERPRISE INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2179/2013

Court found 1st Applicant not an honest or reliable witness and that the overall relationship was that of client and independent contractor not employer-employee; although the 2nd Applicant suffered an injury on 24 February 2012, by reason of the parties' agreement and the court's finding on employment status the 2nd Applicant was not an employee; both applications dismissed and Respondent entitled to costs.
6 May 2016

LAU CHAN WAH v. PAT TAT TRANSPORTATION LTD

Citation

LAU CHAN WAH v. PAT TAT TRANSPORTATION LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1752/2014

On the overall evaluation the relationship was an employer-employee one: Pat Tat owned and managed the transport business, controlled clients and orders, paid all vehicle outgoings and Mr Lau bore no operational risk; payments to Mr Lau were fixed fees per consignment plus habitual miscellaneous income attributable to Pat Tat's services, therefore Pat Tat is liable under the ECO and the court included miscellaneous/extra work payments in earnings and calculated statutory awards accordingly.
24 Nov 2015

SINGH HARJIT v. DETERMINATION BUSINESS LTD t/a MUSE STUDIO

Citation

SINGH HARJIT v. DETERMINATION BUSINESS LTD t/a MUSE STUDIO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV68/2015

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's primary factual findings on liability (no proven accident in the course of employment) and on the applicant's pattern of work (about five days a month) were within the range of reasonable conclusions based on credibility assessments and documentary evidence; no material errors were shown that would render the findings plainly wrong.