Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

On-call duty

Legal area

Court

14 Sept 2022

HO TZE YING CONNIE v. AVIATION SECURITY CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 988
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC653/2018

The 2‑day delay resulted from an innocent procedural mistake and was excusable; therefore the ordinary 'reasonable prospect of success' test applied. None of the applicant's grounds demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success because they re‑argued factual matters or mischaracterised the Decision rather than identifying errors of law. Consequently leave to appeal out of time was refused and costs were ordered to the respondent with Certificate for Counsel, with costs to be summarily assessed on paper under the specified timetable.
1 Dec 2006

CHENG HO KEE AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

CHENG HO KEE AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV30/2005

Overnight on call does not constitute 'standing-by at his place of work' under CSR 668 because the immediate vicinity area is residential/recreational and not the officers' place of work; instead the period is properly characterised as 'required to be on call' at a fixed location under CSR 669 and therefore is not regarded as overtime nor subject to recompense beyond the contractual special allowance.
3 Nov 2004

LEUNG KAM KEUNG v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

LEUNG KAM KEUNG v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4920/2002

On the true construction of CSR 678 the superior may require an officer to be on call at a specified location including his quarters; being required to remain in quarters to be continuously and immediately available is consistent with on-call status and does not convert the time into overtime or stand-by nor convert the quarters into the officer's place of work. Therefore the plaintiff's night responsibilities were on-call duties within CSR 678 and not overtime or stand-by.
9 Feb 2004

CHENG HO KEE AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

CHENG HO KEE AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA16883/1999

The judge held that overnight on call is an inherent requirement of CSD employment and, in terms of the CSRs, correctly classified as on-call under CSR 669 rather than as stand duty under CSR 668; accordingly plaintiffs were not entitled to overtime/time off in lieu and their breach of contract claims fail.
28 May 1999

SHAU LIN CHI v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

SHAU LIN CHI v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV339/1998

Regulation 669 must be read in context and 'another fixed location' does not include the officer's place of work; being on call at the workplace in the circumstances amounted to working beyond conditioned hours and entitled the officer to time-off in lieu; appeal dismissed.
30 Oct 1998

SHAU LIN CHI v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

SHAU LIN CHI v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7513/1994

The court held that the plaintiff was required to remain in the vicinity of HIDC and be continuously available under orders, which constituted 'work' and overtime under CSR 665/667; CSR 669 did not apply because the plaintiff was not free to be at home or another fixed location, and therefore he was entitled to time off in lieu; declaration granted.

Hong Kong Case Law

HO TZE YING CONNIE v. AVIATION SECURITY CO LTD

CHENG HO KEE AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

LEUNG KAM KEUNG v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

CHENG HO KEE AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

SHAU LIN CHI v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

SHAU LIN CHI v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE