Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Employer identification

Legal area

Court

24 Dec 2025

NGAU WING CHI v. DAN DAN HEALTH (WHAMPOA) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6290
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA31/2025

Leave to appeal refused because the applicant’s grounds challenge factual findings and do not disclose an arguable error of law or jurisdictional error; the Deputy Adjudicator’s finding that the 1st Defendant was the employer was supported by contemporaneous documents and probabilities, clause 9 did not entitle the Claimant to the claimed sums and did not justify implying a term, there was no failure to investigate or appearance of bias, and the costs award was within discretion.
12 Dec 2025

叶敏對翁其樂及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2056
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC167/2023

The court accepted the applicant's evidence and documentary records over the first respondent's inconsistent account and found that the first respondent was the applicant's employer and the second respondent was the main contractor who subcontracted the painting work to the first respondent; both respondents were therefore jointly and severally liable under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance and compensation was assessed and quantified at HK$1,100,364 with specified interest and costs orders.
7 Mar 2024

HUNG CHUEN LUNG 對 JC CONSTRUCTION (a dissolved firm)及另二人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 367
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2343/2021

Court accepted applicant's account that the accident occurred and found that the work was undertaken for JC Construction (the partnership). The second and third respondents, by representation and conduct, held themselves out as partners; therefore JC Construction was the employer. Applying the multifactor test, the applicant was an employee, not self-employed. The court accepted monthly earnings of HK$17,000, permanent loss of earning capacity at 5%, certified sick leave of 680 days, and medical expense entitlement per Schedule 3 limits. Consequent awards: s9 HK$61,200; s10 HK$308,266.66; s10…
12 Dec 2022

何健文對林進龍及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1446
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC130/2021

On the balance of probabilities the second respondent was the applicant's employer: contemporaneous WhatsApp messages from the first respondent providing location, directions, work instructions, confirmations and procurement of tools demonstrated control over work and supply of tools; the company (second respondent) was found to have contracted for the renovation and supplied materials, thus was liable. Compensation was calculated using the statutory income cap and multiplier and awards under ss9,10 and 10A accordingly.
22 Jul 2021

DAI JIANQIANG 對 LAU YIU BUN (劉耀斌) t/a WING LEE DOR LAU’S ENGINEERING CO 及另二人

Citation

[2021] HKDC 883
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1104/2017

Court found on balance that second respondent exercised the requisite control and performed recruitment/registration via its site supervisor and was therefore the applicant's employer; third respondent was the principal contractor who subcontracted the works to second respondent and is therefore jointly and severally liable under s24; first respondent was only an introducer and not the employer; compensation was assessed at HKD 674,584 plus interest and costs awarded against second and third respondents.
30 Dec 2019

MUHAMMAD DOST v. HONG KONG YING CHEUNG TRADING (RECYCLING) LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 375
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC234/2015

Court exercised discretion under s2(2) ECO to treat the applicant as if employed under a valid contract, found respondent was the employer on the evidence, held that an illegal worker is entitled to section 10 compensation where discretion is exercised and medical certification supports temporary incapacity, and awarded section 9 and section 10 sums accordingly.
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.
13 Jul 2018

CHAN PUI KWAN v. ECRENT (HK) CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1619
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA5/2018

Service effected at the company's registered office was valid under section 827 Companies Ordinance and section 13 LTO does not exclude the operation of section 827; accordingly the first ground (invalid service) was not arguable. However, there were arguable points that the Tribunal failed to investigate material defences and failed to give reasons, so conditional leave to appeal was granted subject to payment into court and filing requirements.
31 May 2018

LEE YUI KAI v. TD CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKDC 607
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC111/2015

The court found Applicant was not in genuine doubt as to his employer, his pleadings and witness statements were inadequate to justify joining R1, and R2 did not mislead Applicant; section 3 indicated R2 remained the employer when Applicant worked for R1 using R2's tools; accordingly it was unreasonable to require R2 to bear the costs of R1 and Applicant must pay R1's costs assessed at $6,000. This justified refusing a Sanderson/Bullock order against R2.
5 Jan 2017

TANG LAI KING（for herself and on behalf of the members of the family of KEUNG CHOI ON, deceased v. LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS (ASIA) LTD and GAMMON CONSTRUCTION LTD t/a LEIGHTON-GAMMON JOINT VENTURE (a firm) AND OTHERS

Citation

TANG LAI KING（for herself and on behalf of the members of the family of KEUNG CHOI ON, deceased v. LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS (ASIA) LTD and GAMMON CONSTRUCTION LTD t/a LEIGHTON-GAMMON JOINT VENTURE (a firm) AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2218/2014

On the balance of probabilities the Workplace was rented and used for Project 810A works and the Deceased was employed by Mr Kan trading as Tung Fat (not by Mr Hui); accordingly Tung Fat as employer and the JV as principal contractor are liable under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance; hearsay Labour Department declarations and magistracy evidence were sufficiently reliable and accorded weight.