Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Wrongful dismissal

Legal area

Court

21 Aug 2025

CHUNG HOI YIN AGGIE v. THE GENERAL OF THE SALVATION ARMY

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3680
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA16/2023

SQS 5 was not incorporated into the Employment Contract because its content was not apt in the contractual context and incorporation would create obligations only on the employee; the employment was a fixed‑term contract that expired on effluxion of time which is not a dismissal, therefore the Labour Tribunal’s finding of dismissal and award of section 32P compensation were set aside and the claimant's claim dismissed.
25 Jul 2025

LAU WAI HUNG v. ISS FACILITY SERVICES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3161
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA820/2021

Court found that Lau Wai Hung breached his fiduciary and contractual duties by failing to disclose conflicts and by forwarding/manufacturing quotations such that procurement procedures were subverted; World Class dishonestly assisted in manufacturing competing quotations for the TED venture; however plaintiffs affirmed the World Class transaction and failed to prove quantifiable loss or proper market comparators, so rescission and damages were not awarded; TED's counterclaim and LWH's unlawful dismissal claim were dismissed.
18 Jun 2025

HU YANGYONG v. ALBA ASIA LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2484
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1135/2019

Court found on the balance of probabilities that plaintiff incurred genuine monthly family expenses exceeding RMB20,000, that he consulted ZL and had reasonable cause to believe use of invoices from other sources was acceptable, and that employer staff checked and approved the claims; the evidence was insufficient to prove dishonesty/fraud to the requisite standard or to justify summary dismissal on loss of trust; defendant's counterclaim failed for want of loss; judgment entered for plaintiff with damages and debts awarded except service fees under the separate Service Agreement.
2 May 2025

CHAN LONG NING, CHRISTINE v. DICKSON CONCEPTS (RETAIL) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 721
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1660/2024

The claims as pleaded in the Draft Amended Statement of Claim were struck out: employment contract claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal and, alternatively, barred by the Henderson v Henderson abuse of process rule; the discrimination claim was brought outside the 24-month limit under DDO s82(1) and the plaintiff failed to show it was just and equitable to extend time under s82(3); the psychiatric injury claim was not a standalone cause and was barred by prior DCPI proceedings under Henderson/res judicata. The amendment and stay applications were dismissed and th…
7 Apr 2025

梁褀榮對斯樂鞋廠有限公

Citation

[2025] HKDC 651
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4783/2024

The plaintiff's claim is founded on alleged wrongful dismissal seeking monetary relief and contains no independent tort; such claims fall within the Labour Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction under the Labour Tribunal Ordinance (Cap.25) Schedule and s7(2). Therefore the District Court lacks jurisdiction and the statement of claim is struck out; the court also ordered costs to the defendant.
27 Mar 2025

MAIZE PETER ANDREW v. INTERNATIONAL CHINA CONCERN LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1231
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA48/2024

Leave to appeal was granted only in respect of the first ground concerning the Tribunal's treatment of an email allegedly acknowledging implementation of the employer's Policy on accrual/carry forward of annual leave; the other grounds were held not reasonably arguable because the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of redundancy and the pleaded claims did not properly encompass alleged pre‑termination breaches of mutual trust and confidence relevant to the claimed damages.
28 Nov 2024

SPARKLE CAPITAL LTD v. CHAN WAI MAN also known as CHAN WAI MAN IVAN

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1982
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ289/2021

The alleged oral agreement was not proved and contradicted documented terms; defendant breached the written employment contract by wilfully refusing to report and by operating NICADA without prior consent, justifying summary dismissal under s9(1) Employment Ordinance; however plaintiff failed to prove any loss or that confidential information or IP was misused or withheld, so relief is nominal damages to plaintiff while defendant is entitled to unpaid wages and annual leave shown to be owing.
28 Nov 2024

SPARKLE CAPITAL LTD v. CHAN WAI MAN also known as CHAN WAI MAN IVAN

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1982
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ836/2018

The oral agreement was rejected as inherently improbable and contradicted by witness evidence and written contract terms; defendant breached the written employment contract by refusing to report to duty and operating his own company without prior written consent, but plaintiff failed to prove misuse or non‑return of confidential information or quantifiable loss from those breaches; therefore dismissal was lawful under s9(1) EO, plaintiff entitled only to nominal damages and defendant entitled to unpaid wages and annual leave shown to be owing.
28 Nov 2024

黃智鴻對曾立民經營深情公司

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1101
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP43/2024

The Court of Appeal refused leave because the appellant's grounds lacked merit, the record showed no coercion or bias by the trial appeal judge who properly invited the parties to decide whether to remit the matter, the case did not raise an issue of general public importance under s35A, and the appellant had agreed in open court not to pursue the respondent's claim or costs; accordingly permission to appeal was refused and a rule was made precluding further oral reconsideration under High Court Rules Order 59 r2A(8).
5 Jul 2024

覃錫鴻對卓越成就國際有限公司

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1740
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA15/2024

The High Court refused leave to appeal because the applicant's complaints raised factual disputes the Labour Tribunal reasonably resolved by assessing contemporaneous WhatsApp evidence and witness credibility; no arguable error of law or excess of jurisdiction was shown to justify permission to appeal.