Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Employer status

Legal area

Court

30 Dec 2015

HUNG CHIU KWAN DANKA v. LUI CHI MUN TEDDY formerly t/a SAMMY EXHIBITION DESIGN PRODUCTION CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUNG CHIU KWAN DANKA v. LUI CHI MUN TEDDY formerly t/a SAMMY EXHIBITION DESIGN PRODUCTION CO AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC703/2012

Because the court found the 1st respondent to be the applicant's employer and that counsel's attendance in the trial was proper, the costs order nisi of 14 September 2015 was varied to grant the applicant a counsel certificate with the applicant's original application costs to be paid by the 1st respondent (taxed if not agreed); due to the circumstances of the present summons there would be no order as to costs of the summons and the applicant's own costs of the summons were to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.
6 Oct 2014

CHAN MANG FUNG AND OTHERS v. HONGPLUS PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS LTD

Citation

CHAN MANG FUNG AND OTHERS v. HONGPLUS PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA18/2014

The Officer had carefully and properly evaluated the evidence and did not err in law in his fact‑finding; although it was improvident to invite Workers to withdraw the Alternative Case based on their subjective belief and the Officer should have invited reconsideration, that procedural flaw did not produce sufficient injustice to set aside the dismissal against Hongplus and therefore leave to appeal is refused and the applications are dismissed.
6 Jan 2010

KWONG KIN YIN v. SHUN LEE COPPER & DECORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

KWONG KIN YIN v. SHUN LEE COPPER & DECORATION LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI285/2008

The Re-Amended Summons was dismissed because the identity of the subcontractor and the Plaintiff's employer raised genuine disputed questions of fact supported by equivocal contemporaneous documents and witness statements; the case was not a plain and obvious one suitable for strike out and at least an arguable case existed that the Third Party could be the subcontractor or employer; credibility issues required trial resolution.
20 Mar 2007

TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC243/2004

On uncontested evidence and contemporaneous admissions and documents (work permits, payroll, tax returns, Forms 2 and correspondence) the court found Viatech Engineering Ltd was the employer of the eight deceased and Zen Pacific Civil Contractors Ltd was the principal contractor; the accident occurred in the course of employment and thus arose out of employment by statutory presumption; compensation was payable under s.6 calculated from stated monthly earnings and apportioned among dependants under Schedule 7; interest and costs ordered; indemnity claim between respondents to be heard subsequ…
20 Mar 2007

TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC244/2004

Court found on the documentary and witness evidence that Viatech Engineering Limited (1st Respondent) was the employer of the eight deceased crew members and that Zen Pacific Civil Contractors Limited (2nd Respondent) was the principal contractor; applied the presumption in s.5(4)(a) that the accident arose out of employment; assessed statutory compensation under s.6 and apportioned awards under Schedule 7; awarded interest and costs; reserved 2nd Respondent's indemnity claim under s.24(2) for a subsequent hearing.
18 Jan 2006

WAAN CHUEN MING v. LO KIN NAM t/a KAR KIN ENGINEERING & SUPPLIER CO AND OTHERS

Citation

WAAN CHUEN MING v. LO KIN NAM t/a KAR KIN ENGINEERING & SUPPLIER CO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV112/2005

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the judge's exercise of discretion to maintain the master's extension of the writ because the short one‑week delay, the defendants' actual knowledge of the claim and amended statement of claim before expiry, ongoing discovery disputes and the complexity of employer attribution provided sufficient justification and amounted to no clear error of law or fact warranting interference.
20 Feb 2002

CHOI SIAU BON v. CHEVALIER CONSTRUCTION (HONG KONG) LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

CHOI SIAU BON v. CHEVALIER CONSTRUCTION (HONG KONG) LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI913/2000

The court found the 2nd defendant to be the true employer, held the 1st defendant in breach of Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations (regs 38A and 38P) and the employer in breach of common law duty to provide a safe system/place of work, rejected contributory negligence, assessed damages and ordered judgment for the plaintiff net of employees' compensation award.
19 Sept 2001

YU CHI KONG v. CHAN SIK PAN AND OTHERS

Citation

YU CHI KONG v. CHAN SIK PAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV5/2001

The trial judge's stated reason for finding Wylam the employer was legally inadequate; more importantly, the judge fundamentally breached natural justice by preventing Mr Yu from giving any evidence. Because it is not perfectly plain that the same result would follow after a proper hearing, the Court set aside the Court of Appeal's substitution of findings and ordered a new trial between the four parties limited to the question who was the claimant's employer; the existing finding that the employer is liable remains operative for purposes of proceedings on liability and quantum is to be addre…