Employment Status Upheld in Workers’ Compensation Dispute
Employee Compensation
In Fan Lian v Wong Ka Keung [2025] HKDC 1336, the Court adopted an “overall evaluative-impressionistic approach” and found the existence of an employment relationship, awarding over HK$350,000 in employees’ compensation.
Patrick Szeto, instructed by Or & Lau, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, acted for the applicant.
Sabina Sui provides her analysis on the judgment.
Facts
The Applicant, Madam Fan Lian (“A”), sustained right wrist fracture injuries in a fall while performing plastering work at the Respondent Wong Ka Keung’s (“R”) residence on 29 May 2021. She seeks compensation under sections 9, 10 and 10A of the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282) (“ECO”). The sole issue on liability concerns whether A was R’s employee or an independent contractor at the time of the accident.
A claimed that she had worked for R intermittently since 2011 on renovation projects in his various properties as a casual worker, using tools and materials provided by R, under his control and supervision, and without bearing any financial risk. She produced a work diary recording her attendance, wages and work details.
R, on the other hand, denied any employment relationship, asserting that A was an independent contractor who had undertaken wall works in his residence for a lump-sum contract fee of HK$30,000, purchasing her own tools and paint materials. He contended that he lacked the expertise to supervise her work and had only reimbursed her expenses. He further maintained that his payments to A totaling HK$42,000 were partly contract payment and partly loans given out of sympathy.
Findings
The Court applied the “overall impression” test laid down in Poon Chau Nam v Yim Siu Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 156 and the indicia of employment set out in Tse Lam & Ors v Chan Tak Wai (HCLA 150/1995, 10/01/1997). The Court found A’s evidence to be consistent, reasonable, and corroborated by contemporaneous documents and witness testimonies, while R’s evidence was unreasonable, unreliable and contradicted by documentary evidence—particularly regarding his knowledge of A’s work, his renovation experience, and the alleged lump-sum contract fee.
While R’s counsel argued that R had no experience nor qualification in renovation works hence he was not capable of and unlikely to be exercising control over A’s work as an employer, the Court emphasized that there is no legal requirement for an employer to have experience or qualification in order to exercise control over an employee’s work. In fact, the Court found that R’s arrangement of A’s work schedule and daily supervision and monitoring of work progress clearly supported control indicative of an employment relationship. In any event, the Court rejected R’s submissions that he had no knowledge nor experience at all in renovation works.
Adopting an “overall evaluative impressionistic approach”, the Court concluded that A was at the time of the accident working as a daily paid casual worker, and an employee under the arrangements, supervision and control of R. Accordingly, R was liable to pay over HK$350,000 in compensation under the ECO.
Takeaway
This case underscores that determining employment status under the ECO depends on the totality of the relationship. Consistent evidence of control and supervision, irrespective of whether the purported employer has experience or qualification in the relevant area, may point to an employment relationship even in informal or casual work settings. Contemporaneous records, such as work diaries, can be powerful evidence in establishing (or disproving) such relationships, particularly in disputes involving verbal or casual work arrangements.
Patrick Szeto
Patrick studied law at the University of Hong Kong and was admitted to the Hong Kong Bar in 1995. He served pupillage in Denis Chang’s Chambers and joined as a tenant in 1996 upon completion of pupillage. Patrick has developed a general mixed practice in both civil and criminal matters.
Patrick has appeared in the Court of Final Appeal on constitutional matters (adoption and right of abode), land matters (adverse possession), contract matters (conveyancing fees arrangement) and employees’ compensation matters (Wo Chun Wah v Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board (2019) 22 HKCFAR 495 – court’s jurisdiction on costs and power of the ECAS Board to enter into settlement).
Visit Patrick’s profile for more details.
Sabina Sui
Sabina is developing a broad practice in general civil litigation, with a particular interest in personal injuries and public law matters. She is fluent in English, Cantonese and Mandarin, and accepts instructions in all areas of work.
Find out more from Sabina’s profile.
This article was first published on 5 November 2025.
Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice and seeks to set out the general principles of the law. Detailed advice should therefore be sought from a legal professional relating to the individual merits and facts of a particular case. The photographs which appear in this article are included for decorative purposes only and should not be taken as a depiction of any matter to which the case is related. The views and opinions expressed in this article/material are solely those of the members authoring it and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Denis Chang’s Chambers, or of any other member or members of Denis Chang’s Chambers.