Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Employment contract

Legal area

Court

29 Sept 2021

PARK CHUL SOO v. SWEE KHENG BUILDING MATERIAL CO. LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2942
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA1/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because the Defendant's grounds were essentially attempts to re-run factual challenges to the Tribunal's findings; the Tribunal's detailed factual findings, including acceptance of the Claimant's evidence and inference of an employment contract, were supported by evidence and correct application of law, and no arguable point of law or jurisdictional error was demonstrated.
17 Apr 2014

HOTEL PANORAMA CO LTD v. CHAN WAH CHIU ANTHONY

Citation

HOTEL PANORAMA CO LTD v. CHAN WAH CHIU ANTHONY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA496/2013

Defendant failed to discharge the Spiliada burden at stage one; the Employment Contract had the most real and substantial connection with Hong Kong, was governed by Hong Kong law, plaintiff's witnesses and documents were in Hong Kong, and the defendant did not show London was clearly and distinctly more appropriate; therefore the stay was refused.
18 Apr 2005

SIU KAI YUEN v. MARIA COLLEGE

Citation

SIU KAI YUEN v. MARIA COLLEGE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO9/2004

Court found plaintiff was a person with disability and the principal had knowledge; direct discrimination established because dismissal was less favourable treatment on ground of disability when compared to permitted long leaves (e.g. maternity, jury duty); indirect discrimination also established because contractual absence terms (10% rule and substitution charge) had disproportionate adverse impact on disabled teachers and were not justifiable by legitimate aims or proportional means; defendant failed to invoke or plead statutory defence under s12(2); contractual reliance did not excuse dis…
3 Sept 2004

TSO MAN WAH v. GOLDEN SAND (HOLDINGS) LTD

Citation

TSO MAN WAH v. GOLDEN SAND (HOLDINGS) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA141/2003

The appeal is allowed in respect of the 2nd Defendant because the Presiding Officer's finding that the 2nd Defendant was a co-employer was tainted by legal errors (misunderstanding of Mr Tso's role and failure to consider the payroll document), and on the correct view the claim against the 2nd Defendant must be dismissed while the award against the 1st Defendant remains.
20 Jan 2004

LAI WO HEUNG v. CHEUNG KONG FUR FTY CO LTD

Citation

LAI WO HEUNG v. CHEUNG KONG FUR FTY CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA123/2002

The appeal was allowed because the Labour Tribunal failed to make an express finding on the crucial factual issue of the subjective intention of the agent (Mr Tuen Mo) as to whom he represented; without that determination the identity of the employer could not be reliably established, requiring the Tribunal's orders to be set aside and the claim remitted for re-trial.
28 Nov 2002

ELIZABETH HARRINGTON v. CAP GEMINI ERNST & YOUNG HONG KONG LTD.

Citation

ELIZABETH HARRINGTON v. CAP GEMINI ERNST & YOUNG HONG KONG LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL10/2002

Plaintiff was found to be ordinarily resident in the United States with no evidence of substantial fixed property in Hong Kong; the argument that her residence change was caused by the defendant's alleged wrongdoing failed on the facts; exercising the court's discretion in line with practice and precedent, security for costs was ordered in the sum of HK$125,000 up to completion of discovery, payable into court or by bank guarantee within 28 days, with failure to provide resulting in a stay of proceedings and costs of the application awarded to the defendant.

Hong Kong Case Law

PARK CHUL SOO v. SWEE KHENG BUILDING MATERIAL CO. LTD

HOTEL PANORAMA CO LTD v. CHAN WAH CHIU ANTHONY

SIU KAI YUEN v. MARIA COLLEGE

TSO MAN WAH v. GOLDEN SAND (HOLDINGS) LTD

LAI WO HEUNG v. CHEUNG KONG FUR FTY CO LTD

ELIZABETH HARRINGTON v. CAP GEMINI ERNST & YOUNG HONG KONG LTD.