Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Employer-employee relationship

Legal area

Court

7 Nov 2024

CHAN CHI KWOK 對 SIU HON WAH HOWARD (蕭漢華) trading as CHUNG WAH TRADING & TRANSPORTATION CO (中華貿易貨運公司)

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1857
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1520/2022

On credibility and corroborating evidence (respondent's Facebook hiring activity, applicant's consistent account of reporting to respondent's premises, respondent arranging transport and payments and attending the scene), the court found on the balance of probabilities that the applicant was employed by the respondent when the accident occurred; compensation was calculated under Cap.282 s9 (permanent loss 1.5% using monthly income per s11(2) of HK$18,200 and multiplier 72), s10 (temporary incapacity for 134 days) and s10A (medical expenses), prior payments of HK$33,000 were deducted, and the…
26 Aug 2024

LAM LEUNG HANG v. CHAN MING FAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1345
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1697/2022

The court held the 1st Respondent was the Applicant's employer based on the prior conviction and the application of employment indicia; monthly earnings for a notional worker in the Applicant's position were fixed at HK$700 per day for 22 workdays (HK$15,400 per month) under s11(2); compensation was calculated under s9 (72 months×14.5% loss) and s10 with CPI adjustment under s11(1A) for periods beyond 12 months, net of income received on resumption of work, and medical expenses under s10A were awarded, resulting in total compensation of HK$459,032.13.
26 Apr 2024

HOSSAIN MD FARUK v. KHAN, FAQERGUL formerly known as KHAN, WAJID trading as PESHAWAR AUTO DISMENTLING & GENERAL TRADING CO

Citation

[2024] HKCA 351
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV156/2022

The Judge's factual finding that Gul acted as person‑in‑charge and that the respondent, as sole proprietor, was the employer was open on the evidence; excluding the respondent's witness statement was a proper exercise of case‑management discretion where respondent chose not to give evidence via VCF and fairness to applicant required cross‑examination; credibility complaints were addressed and rejected on trial record; appeal dismissed and costs summarily assessed at a reasonable reduced figure.
7 Mar 2024

CHAN PUN CHING 對 HO CHUN CHEUNG

Citation

[2024] HKDC 357
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2219/2022

Respondent was not the applicant's employer because he did not operate a business, did not bear financial risk or derive profit from hiring the applicant, the parties were casual collaborators (a gang) engaged to work for a third party (Shahin), and the indicia point against an employer-employee relationship; therefore respondent has no liability under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance.
3 Sept 2021

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ v. KIN HONG TRANSPORTATION CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1109
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2994/2018

On balance of probabilities the respondent was not the applicant's employer at the time of the accident. The tribunal found the applicant's account inconsistent with contemporaneous statements to the Labour Department, improbable factual assertions (eg inability to recall phone number, manner of post-accident events), and inherently unlikely explanations; the respondent's witnesses and an authentic transport contract showing Chen as the contracting owner who engaged delivery labour were preferred. Accordingly the applicant's claim in employees' compensation was dismissed.
3 Dec 2019

HO KIN SHING 對王豐桂及另二人

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1581
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC493/2012

On the balance of probabilities the First Respondent was not the Applicant's employer nor the gang leader/agent of the Second Respondent. The objective evidence — introduction by the First Respondent, the presence of a site person-in-charge identified as the Second Respondent, allocation of work and provision of tools by the Second Respondent, luncheon arrangements and transport pattern, police record identifying Second Respondent as PIC, and written admission of responsibility by Second Respondent — established the Second Respondent as employer. Mere introduction, transport and isolated paym…
18 Jul 2019

HKSAR v. HARI ARSHDEEP SINGH

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1979
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA124/2019

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove employment beyond reasonable doubt because the evidence consisted only of a brief observation and lacked nexus to any employer, payment, instructions or control; the magistrate impermissibly drew inference from inference and the conviction was unsafe and quashed.
22 Sept 2017

HKSAR v. MASIH, SHAMOON AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. MASIH, SHAMOON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA357/2017

From the proved facts — arrangements made for a removal job, delivery of boxes and equipment, presence of five Southeast Asian males actively packing and moving household items for about half an hour, and identification by the domestic helper — the only reasonable inference beyond reasonable doubt was that the appellants had been employed to provide removal services and thus contravened s38AA; the appeals are therefore dismissed.
31 Oct 2016

TAHIR KASHIF v. SAFDAR NASAR MAHMUD

Citation

TAHIR KASHIF v. SAFDAR NASAR MAHMUD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1763/2011

Leave to adduce the proposed orthopaedic expert was refused because the applicant failed to show the expert was necessary: the central disputes were factual and credibility issues (whether the injury occurred in the course of employment or from a traffic accident), existing contemporaneous medical evidence and witness statements already addressed nature of the injury, and permitting the expert would delay the case and increase costs contrary to active case management under the Civil Justice Reforms.
27 Aug 2015

MOHAMMAD SHAKEEL v. WONG KIN YU AND OTHERS

Citation

MOHAMMAD SHAKEEL v. WONG KIN YU AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2441/2011

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Wong Kin Yu was his employer under the Poon Chau Nam factors and failed to prove the accident occurred as pleaded because of significant, unexplained contradictions between his account and contemporaneous medical records and witness evidence; therefore the claim was dismissed.