Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Termination of employment

Legal area

Court

6 Mar 2025

盧偉河對威格斯物業管理及警衛服務(香港)有限公司,前稱為威格斯物業管理服務(香港)有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 941
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA32/2024

Leave to appeal was granted on a single legal question: whether the respondent dismissed the applicant under section 9 of the Employment Ordinance and, if so, the legal effect of that characterization on the applicant's long service payment claim, because the Tribunal did not clearly determine whether it was treating the termination as summary dismissal despite the respondent having issued a notice/payment in lieu, making the point arguable on law.
15 Jan 2025

LO WAI KEUNG v. HANNOVER RUCK SE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 262
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA7/2024

Where an employer elects to terminate a contract by payment in lieu of an unserved contractual notice period, the termination operates as a termination without notice for the purposes of Clause 4(1)(ii); accordingly the Tribunal did not err in law in construing the Employer's s7 termination as "without notice" and dismissing the appeal on that question of law.
31 Oct 2024

LI QING v. SFUND INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT FUND MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2629
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA5/2024

The Presiding Officer erred in law by adopting an incorrect factual test (focusing on whether the Claimant performed work after 3 March 2022) and by failing to investigate the realistic possibility of termination by mutual agreement; accordingly the appeal is allowed, the Trial Decision and Review Decision are set aside and the claim is remitted to the Labour Tribunal for retrial before another Presiding Officer; costs of the appeal are awarded to the Defendant to be summarily assessed.
5 Aug 2024

CHINACHEM AGENCIES LTD v. KUNG YAN SUM AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2010
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2024/2019

The court found no estoppel by convention because the alleged common assumption was neither communicated to nor adopted by the Plaintiff, its contents were insufficiently certain, there was no proven detrimental reliance, and it would not be unjust to permit the Plaintiff to revert to the true legal position. The Siblings occupied under revocable licences as employees; those licences were validly terminated and the Plaintiff is entitled to possession and mesne profits. The counterclaim was dismissed.
5 Aug 2024

CHINACHEM AGENCIES LTD v. KUNG YAN SUM

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2010
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2022/2019

The court found for the plaintiff: the siblings occupied the premises as licensees provided as staff quarters under employment; there was no evidence the alleged family promises were communicated to or adopted by the plaintiff so as to create a shared common assumption, the alleged common assumption lacked the requisite certainty, and no detrimental reliance was established; accordingly the estoppel by convention failed and the plaintiff's termination of licences was effective, entitling the plaintiff to possession and mesne profits.
3 Aug 2023

ACUMEN HONG KONG LTD v. KWAN PAK KEI LAWTON

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2038
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1246/2022

The counterclaim, while not frivolous on its merits because the termination letter was ambiguous and no clear consideration was shown, must be struck out for want of jurisdiction and as an abuse of process because monetary claims for breach of employment contracts fall within the Labour Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction and the counterclaim in the CFI was not the subject of a valid transfer under s.10 of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance.
10 Jul 2023

陳秀桃 v. 香港特別行政區政府首長

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1517
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL593/2023

The provided extract does not record a full dispositive reasoning. The court's material findings are limited to noting the applicant acted in person, filed a Form 86, claimed termination of employment with HSBC and sought protective relief over documents and personal data; no substantive orders are set out in the extract.
18 Aug 2022

竹林明堂有限公司對陳祺豐

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2509
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2782/2015

The 02.08.15 EGM and the 16.08.15 board resolution were valid; the defendant was validly dismissed effective 17 August 2015 and had notice of that dismissal; the defendant knowingly relied on an unauthorised rival board and therefore could not rely on its purported resolutions; plaintiff proved entitlement to a declaration of termination and recovery of four items but failed to prove trespass, harassment or unpaid overtime; accordingly plaintiff's claim was partly allowed and defendant's counterclaims dismissed.
1 Apr 2021

SIU WAI MAN v. DAISHO MICROLINE LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 372
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1241/2017

Court found on the facts that the applicant was not informed of termination in the morning; his attendance at the office was at the employer's request to complete termination formalities; therefore the accident occurring as he left the employer's premises arose out of and in the course of his employment under s5(4)(b) ECO and respondent is liable to pay compensation.
14 Dec 2020

香港特別行政區訴中科興業有限公司

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3016
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA20/2019

The conviction was upheld because the prosecution proved both elements of s.48(1)(a): the employees had lost work capacity as evidenced by medical certificates and s10(2), and the circumstances at termination entitled them to compensation; the employer had knowledge through notification to supervisors and receipt of certificates under s14(2); s5(2)(a) did not apply because it concerns the nature of the injury and capacity, not the fact of payment of full wages.