Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Overtime

Legal area

Court

24 Feb 2021

羅孟君對香港通大國際投資有限公司

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 464
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA13/2018

Leave to appeal was granted because the applicant demonstrated arguable grounds: the tribunal's finding that the contract ended on 27 Oct 2016 lacked reasonable legal or factual basis given contemporaneous documents and notices; the reliability of attendance records and the tribunal's exclusive acceptance of one witness over other contemporaneous evidence gave rise to arguable perverse findings of fact; and there were arguable errors in failing to investigate relevant matters and in legal interpretation of contract clauses affecting overtime and compensatory leave, such that an appeal merits…
30 Sept 2008

LEUNG KA LAU AND OTHERS v. THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

LEUNG KA LAU AND OTHERS v. THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV57/2007

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because the reformulated questions identified are questions of great general or public importance that ought to be decided by the Court of Final Appeal; accordingly leave was granted and no security was required pending that appeal.
21 Jan 2008

LEUNG KA LAU AND OTHERS v. THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

LEUNG KA LAU AND OTHERS v. THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV57/2007

The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs' general overtime claim failed: HRPM read as a whole and in context (including HRAM and the Honorarium Scheme) does not give doctors at the relevant grades an open-ended contractual right to time-off in lieu or cash for all on-call periods; the Honorarium Scheme operates as the fixed compensation regime for doctors in eligible units and Chapter E4 must be read compatibly so time-off is the primary remedy where operationally practicable within a reasonable period but does not ripen into an unfettered future right where it cannot be granted; being on…
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.
29 Aug 2006

VAN LEUVEN LODE v. UNIVAN SHIP MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

VAN LEUVEN LODE v. UNIVAN SHIP MANAGEMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA29/2006

Leave to appeal refused because the claimant sought to challenge findings of fact by the Labour Tribunal which are not appealable under s32(1) unless no evidential basis exists, no arguable point of law was demonstrated, and the claim was prima facie barred by res judicata.
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.
1 Mar 1996

CHENG CHEN SING v. ARNBERGER, KIM, BUXBAUM & CHOY

Citation

CHENG CHEN SING v. ARNBERGER, KIM, BUXBAUM & CHOY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA170/1995

The probationary period was measured in working days (excluding Sundays) and had not expired on 30 January 1995, so the contract allowed only 14 days' notice; the appellant's unilateral failure to return to work was unjustified; approximately 1,300 minutes (about 3 days) of overtime already worked should be treated as compensatory time off and set off against the 14-day notice, reducing the respondent's counterclaim accordingly; net award adjusted to reflect that set-off.