Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Place of employment

Legal area

Court

5 Sept 2019

HKSAR v. KHALIL, MAHAMMAD IBRAHIM

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2128
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA581/2018

The Magistrate's factual findings that the appellant handled and moved 16 carton boxes using the company's forklift on the MGV, coupled with surrounding conduct and lack of evidence of self‑employment, allowed the only reasonable inference that the appellant was undertaking employment; the High Court found no error in those findings and dismissed the appeal as the conviction was not unsafe.
24 Sept 2018

HKSAR v. KARIM, MD RAZAUL AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2168
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA192/2017

The judge refused certification because the four questions raised were factual issues reducible to the sufficiency and evaluation of evidence in this case rather than points of law of general importance; the magistrate's factual findings supported the inference that the applicants were engaged in unloading scrap metal as casual employees and the lorry, when considered together with the recycling yard and evidence of payment to the driver, was a usual place of employment for unloading.
14 Mar 2018

HKSAR v. KARIM MD RAZAUL AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 534
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA192/2017

The High Court held the Magistrate was entitled to draw an irresistible inference of employment from the proved circumstantial evidence: appellants were actively unloading scrap metal, acted under direction and control of the lorry driver (M3), the recycling site/lorry constituted a usual place of employment and there was no credible alternative explanation; the Magistrate did not reverse the burden of proof.
24 Jun 1987

LEUNG WAN JING AND OTHERS v. CHIAT SI PLASTIC METALWARE MANUFACTORY

Citation

LEUNG WAN JING AND OTHERS v. CHIAT SI PLASTIC METALWARE MANUFACTORY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA17/1987

Because alternative employment of the same fundamental kind and salary was available at Shamshuipo and the employer offered to pay bus fares, the move did not amount to dismissal by reason of redundancy under s.31B, so severance pay was not payable and the Labour Tribunal awards were reduced accordingly.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. KHALIL, MAHAMMAD IBRAHIM

HKSAR v. KARIM, MD RAZAUL AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. KARIM MD RAZAUL AND ANOTHER

LEUNG WAN JING AND OTHERS v. CHIAT SI PLASTIC METALWARE MANUFACTORY