Hong Kong Case Law

李廣榮 對 金苑飲食集團有限公司

Court

District Court

Case number

DCEC1802/2022

On the facts the applicant remained employed and was within his normal working hours on employer's premises when assaulted; respondent produced no contrary evidence and did not require him to leave; therefore, under s.5(4)(a) the injury is to be treated as arising out of and in the course of employment and respondent is liable under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance.

Source excerpt

• Employer liability
• Arising out of and in the course of employment
• Termination and post-termination conduct
• Evidence and credibility
• Disclosure of rule 22 form 23

Read case analysis

KAN YUE SAN 對 DAILY SMART CONSULTANTS LTD

Court

District Court

Case number

DCEC1589/2024

Court found applicant was an employee but rejected that the alleged accident occurred and that any work‑related injury was proved: contemporaneous computer records contradicted the applicant's account on timing and nature of goods, applicant's evidence was assessed as not credible while respondent's witness was credible, and applicant failed to discharge the burden to prove occurrence and causation; claim dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Workplace injury
• Employer liability
• Employment status (employee v contractor)
• Credibility and evidential weight
• Causation and proof

Read case analysis

CHOW PAK SHING SPINZA v. TAM YUEN MAN, executrix of the estate of TAM SIU KEUNG, deceased formerly trading as SIU ON SCAFFOLDING COMPANY AND ANOTHER

Court

District Court

Case number

DCEC1413/2023

承建商工地意外的僱員補償案。法院裁定申請人屬首答辯人僱員，按法定公式計算補償，並確認第二答辯人作為總承建商須負責。

• Employer liability
• Principal contractor liability under statute
• Assessment of earnings
• Admissibility of evidence
• Calculation of statutory compensation
• Costs and interest

Read case analysis

WONG WAI HONG 對 LEUNG HOI TONG及另一人

Court

District Court

Case number

DCEC2326/2021

On credibility and evidence the court accepted applicant was an employee of the first respondent at all material times because of employer control, payment pattern, provision of tools/materials, and lack of cogent contrary evidence; under s11(2) the proper monthly income base was HK$1,500×17 days = HK$25,500; the court accepted the Fund Board orthopaedic expert's 3% LOEC and the psychiatric expert's 3% and combined those to 6% LOEC; applicant could return to pre-injury work so the Hong Kong Paper Mills formula did not apply; applying the statutory multipliers and periods produced awards of HK…

Source excerpt

• Employment status
• Employer liability
• Loss of earning capacity
• Calculation of income under s11
• Assessment of damages
• Credibility of witnesses

Read case analysis

YEUNG WALDE BOMBONGAN v. HIGHWOOD INTERNATIONAL LTD

Court

District Court

Case number

DCEC2191/2022

The District Court awarded employees’ compensation after finding the applicant was bitten by a dog while serving at work and had not breached any proved no-pets rule.

• Employer liability
• Employees' compensation ordinance
• Causation
• Wilful misconduct
• Service of process
• Default trial

Read case analysis

WONG LEE CHEUNG 對 譚德榮及另四人

Court

District Court

Case number

DCEC2440/2023

Court accepted claimant proved he sustained injury in the course of employment on 8 November 2021, found an employment relationship between claimant and first respondent based on control, tools provision, incapacity to hire helpers and payment practice, held the fifth respondent was a principal contractor liable under s24(1), dismissed liability of fourth respondent, set aside the default judgment against the third respondent for lack of evidential basis, and awarded assessed compensation of HKD 48,055 plus interest against first, second and fifth respondents jointly and severally.

Source excerpt

• Employee compensation
• Employer liability
• Principal contractor liability
• Default judgment set-aside
• Assessment of damages
• Costs orders (including sanderson order)

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 謝錦元

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA313/2024

The appellate court, conducting a retrial on the record, found the combination of the appellant's admissions and independent corroborative evidence (S1 and S2 performing farm tasks on a non‑opening day, their work clothing and tools, and storage of their items on the premises) established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant employed S1 and S2 who were not lawfully employable; accordingly the convictions under Immigration Ordinance Cap.115 s17I(1)(a) and the sentence of four months imprisonment are upheld.

Source excerpt

• Illegal employment
• Employer liability
• Admissibility and weight of confession
• Credibility assessment
• Standard of proof on retrial

Read case analysis

TSE KWOK WAH v. CHEUNG LAP SANG trading as HOP LEE COMPANY AND ANOTHER

Court

District Court

Case number

DCEC1066/2020

The District Court found the first respondent was the applicant’s employer in an employees’ compensation claim, reassessed loss of earning capacity at 10%, and awarded HK$293,765 plus interest and costs.

• Employer liability
• Loss of earning capacity
• Quantum of statutory compensation
• Credibility and evidence assessment
• Costs and interest
• Employer-liability

Read case analysis

YIN KUNWANG 對 CHAN MING FAI

Court

District Court

Case number

DCEC1696/2022

Court found respondent liable because the accident occurred in the course of employment: applicant was performing employer's task and then reasonably attempted rescue which falls within s5(4)(c); no evidence of serious and wilful misconduct under s5(3); Form 7 assessment of 11% permanent loss is final; applicant's monthly earnings accepted at HK$31,200 (adjusted to HK$32,136 for CPI) and statutory formulas under ss9,10 and 10A applied to compute compensation of HK$641,340.66; respondent ordered to pay interest and costs.

Source excerpt

• Employees' compensation ordinance
• Employer liability
• Rescue doctrine
• Assessment of loss of earning capacity
• Medical expenses

Read case analysis

WANG XIANGYANG 對 ITMFG LTD

Court

District Court

Case number

DCEC2143/2021

On the balance of probabilities the court found the applicant was the respondent's employee because respondent controlled the work, paid wages directly, provided tools, had statutory supervisory obligations as registered minor works contractor, and respondent failed to produce accounting records while its representative's evidence was unreliable; accordingly respondent liable under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance and ordered to pay statutory compensation totalling HK$144,439.83 plus interest and costs.

Source excerpt

• Employment relationship
• Employer liability
• Statutory compensation calculation
• Adverse inference for non-production of documents
• Regulatory supervision of minor works

Read case analysis