Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-payment of wages

Legal area

Court

10 Sept 2024

大偉裝飾有限公司對高家偉

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1454
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1000/2020

Defendant breached the subcontract by failing to complete the works without reasonable justification; plaintiff had paid HK$3,380,000 and was entitled to recover the additional loss caused by defendant's failure: HK$54,262.40 (difference between replacement cost and value of unfinished work), HK$406,200 (labour tribunal liability paid by plaintiff due to defendant's failure to pay workers), and HK$31,750 (project penalty), totalling HK$492,212.40; interest awarded from 15 September 2019 at half-judgment rate until judgment then at judgment rate; defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's costs.
26 Apr 2024

香港特別行政區訴葉少林

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1396
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA410/2022

Documentary evidence (business registration and signed settlement agreement) plus credible witness testimony established appellant was a partner who arranged, directed and engaged the worker and was therefore an employer under the Ordinance; appellant's claimed lack of control of funds and status as a salaried partner did not amount to an objectively reasonable excuse; s64 consent was produced; on retrial standard conviction is safe beyond reasonable doubt, so appeal dismissed.
4 Nov 2022

香港特別行政區訴姚智衡

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3149
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA425/2018

The judge's factual findings accepting the complainant's evidence and rejecting the appellant's account were reasonable and supported by the evidence; the appellant offered no satisfactory explanation for failing to produce the documents at trial so the proposed fresh evidence was properly excluded under the established criteria; the conviction was safe and is therefore upheld.
14 Oct 2022

香港特別行政區訴李忠山

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3161
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA499/2021

The trial judge’s factual findings that the appellant was a senior officer with substantive decision‑making power and that no reasonable excuse existed were supported by credible witness testimony, documentary evidence (emails, employment contracts, signed dismissal letter) and bank records showing available funds; therefore the convictions under the Employment Ordinance were properly supported and must be upheld.
27 Aug 2021

THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. SAMUEL AJMAL VICTOR

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2441
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2426/2017

The Official Receiver failed to prove on balance that the respondent's conduct displayed lack of commercial probity, gross negligence or total incompetence warranting disqualification: credible evidence showed active negotiations with Optimizer, staff had agreed to defer wages pending investor funding, funds from investors/loan were applied in context of preserving the company to complete a viable transaction, and the non-payment of wages for the contested period did not, by itself, demonstrate unfitness under s168H.
17 Aug 2018

香港特別行政區訴林少石

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1908
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA445/2017

Court held that in HCMA188 the payment orders must be reduced to reflect MPF accruals actually received by the employees and adjusted the judgment debt amounts accordingly; in HCMA445 the court allowed the sentence appeals, set aside suspended imprisonment and substituted substantial fines (HKD50,000 and HKD10,000) given the appellant's mitigation and the fact that immediate custody was not required on the facts while reiterating that breaches of ss.43P/43Q are to be treated seriously.
5 Jun 2012

HKSAR v. LI FUNG CHING CATHERINE

Citation

HKSAR v. LI FUNG CHING CATHERINE
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC4/2012

Financial difficulty does not constitute a reasonable excuse for deliberately failing to pay wages; a director who remains in position, has responsibility for company operations and takes no steps to prevent an announced course of withholding wages can be found to have consented to, connived in, or been neglectful under s.64B(1) as a matter of fact, even if she claims to have dissented at an informal or unminuted meeting.
15 Nov 2010

HKSAR v. WONG YUK TUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG YUK TUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA355/2010

Section 63C creates only an evidential burden on an accused to point to a reasonable excuse; the persuasive burden to prove absence of reasonable excuse remains with the prosecution. Although the magistrate erred in indicating the appellants bore the persuasive burden, on the rehearing the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was no reasonable excuse and that non-payment was wilful (company accounts showed sufficient funds), so convictions stand. Sentences of six weeks' imprisonment on each summons are suspended for 18 months.
24 Jan 2003

YICK HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v. LAU PING FAI & NG YIU WING t/a WING FAI & CO.

Citation

YICK HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v. LAU PING FAI & NG YIU WING t/a WING FAI & CO.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA207/2003

The court concluded the Plaintiff had demonstrated a sufficient case and that the balance of convenience favored continuation of the ex parte injunction to preserve the status quo; accordingly the injunction was continued and the defendants were not justified in remaining on site pending resolution of their disputes elsewhere.