Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Overtime pay

Legal area

Court

11 Aug 2022

WONG KA KIT v. HONG KONG PEARL LOGISTICS CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 845
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2387/2020

Court accepted applicant's evidence of regular overtime and assessed monthly earnings at $26,000; applied Board's certified 3.5% loss with multiplier 96 to award s9 compensation of $87,360; applied s10 formula to award $206,400 for certified 258 days of incapacity; awarded $3,995 under s10A; deducted prior periodical payments of $64,000 to arrive at net compensation of $233,755; ordered interest from date of accident and costs to be paid by respondent.
15 Dec 2017

LIU HUANHUAN v. LET’ SPA CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LIU HUANHUAN v. LET’ SPA CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA24/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the Presiding Officer's factual findings and legal conclusions were supported by the evidence and legal principle: admissions and witness evidence (and absence of documentary proof of payment) justified the awards; the contractual clauses were correctly characterised as penal and unenforceable because they did not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss; no substantial injustice or legal error was demonstrated to warrant leave under s32(1) LTO.
13 Jul 2015

林子富對湘廚人家有限公司

Citation

林子富對湘廚人家有限公司
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA16/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because the High Court found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Labour Tribunal's exercise of discretion to conduct the hearing in English with translation and to order a security deposit; the Tribunal's preliminary view that the applicant's case was weak and the deposit order was just and equitable was supported by the hearing record and the applicant failed to show a basis for granting appeal permission.
6 Nov 2013

SHAH PURNA BAHADUR v. ENGLISH SCHOOLS FOUNDATION

Citation

SHAH PURNA BAHADUR v. ENGLISH SCHOOLS FOUNDATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA13/2013

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because there was no error of law nor jurisdictional error in the PO's decision; the PO permissibly found that past payments were for special duties with prior consent and that the claimant's evidence lacked credibility, and such factual findings do not attract appellate interference.
18 Nov 2011

KWAN SIU WA BECKY v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

Citation

KWAN SIU WA BECKY v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV92/2010

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the questions raised did not meet the requisite threshold given the availability of prior tribunal and appellate hearings, the issues could be resolved without the Court of Final Appeal's intervention, and factual/contractual questions (including calculation and overtime) should be determined by the Labour Tribunal or on further appellate process rather than by granting leave to the highest court.
27 Jun 2007

LEUNG SUEN FONG v. GP INDUSTRIES (HONG KONG) LTD t/a HEALTH AND RELAX CENTRE

Citation

LEUNG SUEN FONG v. GP INDUSTRIES (HONG KONG) LTD t/a HEALTH AND RELAX CENTRE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2910/2004

The court found on the facts that the claimant was an employee because he performed managerial and operational duties, purchased equipment, recruited and dismissed staff under the defendant's direction and was subject to control; there was no credible agreement to form a partnership; accordingly the defendant wrongfully terminated employment and owed the claimant specified unpaid wages, holiday and leave pay and overtime totaling HKD 97,014.50, and the defendant's counterclaim failed for lack of proof.
21 Jan 2005

LAM TSUI YEE PROVINSA v. MIAMIEE SPORTSWEAR FACTORY LTD

Citation

LAM TSUI YEE PROVINSA v. MIAMIEE SPORTSWEAR FACTORY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA109/2004

Leave to appeal was granted only in respect of the overtime pay award because the Adjudicator's award was inconsistent with his own findings on hours and hourly rate and lacked evidential support, raising an arguable point of law; all other issues (salary rate, notice period, petty cash) were matters of fact without a point of law and leave was refused.
12 Dec 2000

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 court directed that a comprehensive trial of fourteen lead Plaintiffs proceed on liability, limitation and quantum together; Plaintiffs must provide specified further and better particulars and discovery relating initially to lead Plaintiffs within set timetables; the Defendant may rely on distinctions in conditions of service (rank, institution) without an amendment restricting that defence; costs are in the cause except costs reserved for specified particulars.
19 Nov 1987

LAU HON CHEONG AND ANOTHER v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

LAU HON CHEONG AND ANOTHER v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV95/1987

The Establishment Secretary's memorandum granted the Director of Public Works a discrete power to 'decide' which stand-by times were to be exempted, which amounted to an unlawful delegation of the Secretary's power under the C.S.R.s; therefore the Director's circulars purporting to exclude the plaintiffs from overtime entitlement under the C.S.R.s were invalid and the plaintiffs were entitled to overtime under the relevant C.S.R.s.
28 Sept 1973

TO FO CHOI v. CHU CHI TAO

Citation

TO FO CHOI v. CHU CHI TAO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1041/1973

On the evidence and the contractual terms the plaintiff was entitled to the assessed sums: unpaid wages HK$7,698.26, overtime/holiday pay calculated from exhibited accounts and adjusted for seasonal workability HK$10,690.72, and one month’s wages in lieu of notice HK$1,400.00, totalling HK$19,788.98; interest at 8% from date of writ and costs as ordered follow as matters of course.