Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Travel to and from work

Legal area

Court

9 Sept 2010

CHAN HO YUEN v. MULTI CIRCUIT BOARD (CHINA) LTD

Citation

CHAN HO YUEN v. MULTI CIRCUIT BOARD (CHINA) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC549/2008

Although attendance at the Annual Dinner was incidental to employment, the subsequent spontaneous visit to a karaoke parlour constituted a private entertainment deviation from the employer-provided return transport; the employer did not give express or implied permission for travel in Mr. Lee's private car under those circumstances; the deviation materially increased the risk of the return journey; therefore the accident did not occur in the course of employment and claims are dismissed.
17 Jun 2004

CHENG PO PUI v. SINO ESTATE MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

CHENG PO PUI v. SINO ESTATE MANAGEMENT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC715/2001

Although the applicant was required to attend an employer meeting, the accident occurred on the final stage of her journey home while alighting a public bus after she had come off duty; she was not travelling on employer transport, not in employer's time or on employer's business, therefore the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment and the claim fails.
20 Feb 2001

Hsu Shu Chiao v. Lung Cheong Toys Ltd.

Citation

Hsu Shu Chiao v. Lung Cheong Toys Ltd.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC599/1997

At common law the deceased was not in the course of his employment because his journey was ordinary travel to/from work for personal/social purposes and not incidental to his employment; s.5(4)(d) does not apply because the transport at the time of the accident was a common taxi hired by the deceased and not operated by or on behalf of the employer or pursuant to arrangements made with the employer; accordingly the claim fails.
12 Jun 1991

CHECK CHOR CHING v. WIK FAR EAST LTD.

Citation

CHECK CHOR CHING v. WIK FAR EAST LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV43/1991

Section 5(5A) applies only where the accident occurs while the employee is actually travelling as a passenger in the employer-operated (or arranged) transport; an accident while the employee is crossing a public road between employer buses is not covered and therefore not in the course of employment.
6 Feb 1991

CHECK CHOR CHING v. WIK FAR EAST LTD.

Citation

CHECK CHOR CHING v. WIK FAR EAST LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC248/1990

Section 5(5A) does not apply because the applicant was not actually being carried in the employer's vehicle at the time of the accident, and having finished work she was on a public road acting as a member of the public rather than in the course of her employment; consequently the injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment and the claim fails under Section 5(1).
11 Oct 1983

LAU YING v. THE HONG KONG ASSOCIATION FOR THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Citation

LAU YING v. THE HONG KONG ASSOCIATION FOR THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV85/1983

The Court held that the deceased was not acting in the course of his employment when killed because he had ceased performance of the next assigned duty and was engaged in personal travel; therefore the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment under section 5(1) of the Employees Compensation Ordinance.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHAN HO YUEN v. MULTI CIRCUIT BOARD (CHINA) LTD

CHENG PO PUI v. SINO ESTATE MANAGEMENT LTD

Hsu Shu Chiao v. Lung Cheong Toys Ltd.

CHECK CHOR CHING v. WIK FAR EAST LTD.

CHECK CHOR CHING v. WIK FAR EAST LTD.

LAU YING v. THE HONG KONG ASSOCIATION FOR THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED