Flora Lam 林曉婷
Call : 2018 (HK)
Set : Annex
Practice Areas
Administrative and Public LawArbitrationChanceryCommercial LawCompany and InsolvencyCriminal LawEmploymentFamily LawLand and Property LawProbate and AdministrationRegulatory and DisciplinaryTort and Personal Injuries
Email : [email protected] Secretary : Suki Tsui [email protected]

“Flora is very detail-oriented and creative in formulating legal arguments. As for advocacy, she can make good use of the evidence to strengthen her client’s case and to impress the judges.”
Legal 500 Asia-Pacific 2024, Labour and Employment — Rising Stars

“She is articulate and astute. She provides practical and helpful solutions. In court, she is sharp and composed. Her cross-examination skills are particularly impressive.”
Legal 500 Asia-Pacific 2023, Labour and Employment — Rising Stars

Prior to joining the Bar, Flora worked at an ISO 9001 and ISO 27001 certified enterprise that specializes in learning management systems. During her time with the company, she was responsible for overhauling the company’s sales management system and customer relationship management system to enhance efficiency and compliance of ISO standards of the sales process.

During Flora’s short time in the bar, she already made a name for herself in Hong Kong’s personal injuries field, and has appeared as sole advocate for the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board, a statutory board established under the Employees Compensation Assistance Ordinance, to intervene into employees’ compensation and common law litigations to ensure that the Employees Compensation Assistance Scheme is properly implemented, and the public funds appropriately utilized.

Aside from legal work, Flora teaches law at Hong Kong University School of Professional and Continuing Education (HKSPACE) and Hong Kong Polytechnic University. She is also one of the co-authors of the inaugural title Juries in the Halsbury’s Law of Hong Kong series, and a contributor to the Lexis Practical Guidance (Financial Services) and Lexis Advance Practical Guidance (Private Client).

Named as a “Rising Star” in Labour and Employment in Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2023 and 2024.

  • PCLL, City University of Hong Kong (2016-2017)
  • JD (Distinction), City University of Hong Kong (2013-2016)
  • Bachelor of Commerce (OBHR), University of British Columbia (2010)

Sir Oswald Cheung Memorial Fund PCLL Scholarship (Recipient) (2016)
George Y.C. Mok & Co.’s Prizes (Recipient) (2015)
Hogan Lovells Prize for Overall Excellence in the JD Programme (Recipient) (2014)
Davis Polk Scholarship (Finalist) (2014)
UBC Entrance Scholarship (Recipient) (2005)
Passport to Education Scholarship (Recipient) (2003 – 2005)

Member, Standing Committee on Civic Education, Hong Kong Bar Association (2019 – Present)
Part-time lecturer (Legal Studies), Department of Social Sciences, CCCU/UOW (2019 – 2021)
Part-time lecturer (MSc in Supply Chain and Logistics Management), PolyU (2019 – Present)
Member, Future of the Bar Secretariat Committee, Hong Kong Bar Association (2020 – 2022)
Member, Technology Committee Hong Kong Bar Association (2020 – 2022)
Part-time tutor, Graduate Diploma in Law, HKUSPACE (2020 – Present)
Contributor, Lexis Practical Guidance (Financial Services, Private Client) (2020 – Present)


Wan Yujiao & Anor. v Wui Tung Metal Hardware Company Limited (DCPI 2340/2022)

The 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs were respectively the Estate and dependants of the Deceased, who died in the course of his duty with the respondent. Rendered an advice on quantum, and specifically to address whether to accept the Respondent’s sanctioned payment in light of the minor interest of the Deceased’s son. The Judge granted the Plaintiffs’ O.80 application (i.e. compromise by a person under disability) and commented on the thoroughness of the Advice.

Chen Zhiqiang v New Home Design Limited & The Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board [2023]HKDC 495

Appeared at trial on behalf of the Board to contest the Applicant’s case on quantum. One of the major issues in contention was that the Board wanted the Court to adjudicate the issue of the interpretation of “monthly earnings” under s.11 of the Employees Compensation Ordinance – whether it means a calendar month or period of 31 days immediately before the date of the Accident. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the monthly earnings refer to the
earnings of the calendar month immediately preceding the Accident. (Sole advocate)

Chan Tak On v Much More Human Resources Co. Ltd. & Anor. [2023] HKDC 661
Successfully resisted the Respondents’ application to strike out the Applicant’s application for disclosing no reasonable cause of action. (Sole advocate)

李展達 v林啟智經營 Chi Glory Logistics Co. & Anor. (DCPI 2784/2019)
Appeared for the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board (the 2nd Defendant), seeking to adjourn the trial in light of new evidence obtained. The Plaintiff opposed to the 1st Defendant’s application to adduce new evidence, which was highly relevant to the issue of pre-accident earnings. When the Board intervened into the proceedings, it argued that the unless order against the 1st defendant did not apply to the Board by relying the Court of Appeal judgment in Hong Chun Tak v Yip Kan Kee Contracting Company Limited & Ors. [2020] HKCA 416 and the Court of Final Appeal judgment in Wo Chun Wah v Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board [2019] HKCFA 48. The rationale is that the Board’s function is to ensure the public fund is protected and to screen out unmeritorious and inappropriate claims. As such, the court ruled that despite the unless order having been ordered against the 1st defendant, which was binding, it did not prevent the Board from calling the 1st defendant as the Board’s witness, and adduce the evidence in the 1st defendant’s witness statement. (Sole advocate)

Kwok Kam Sing, Deceased, and in her own capacity v Daily Joy Investment Limited & Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board [2022] HKDC 269
Appeared for the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board (the 2nd Respondent), for assessment of quantum as the 1st Respondent employer did not take out any valid employees’ compensation insurance policy for the deceased employee. The 2nd Respondent successfully obtained a cost order against the 1st Respondent, as the 2nd Respondent was obliged to use public funds to defend against the Applicant’s claim on behalf of the 1st Respondent for the latter’s failure to take out a proper insurance policy as required by statute (Sole advocate)

Shabar Rehman v Sunny Success Holdings Limited & Anor. [2022] HKDC 1403
Appeared for the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board (the 2nd Defendant) to assist the Court in determining the issue of quantum. The Court made a costs order against the Plaintiff to pay costs to the Board on an indemnity basis as the Plaintiff’s evidence was incredible and had dishonestly exaggerated his claim. (Sole advocate)

Chan Pak Yuen v Lam Man Kit [2023] HKCFI 818
Successfully resisted the Plaintiff’s appeal against Master’s decision to expunge all or part of the treating doctors’ reports and obtained a costs order against the Plaintiff. (Sole advocate)

劉遠泉 及 發興行石油產品有限公司 [2023] HKDC 57
Successfully defended the Respondent on liability and obtained indemnity costs against the Applicant. (Sole advocate)

劉遠泉 及 發興行石油產品有限公司 (DCPI 3817/2020)
Successfully struck out the Plaintiff’s against the Defendant on the basis of issue estoppel. (Sole advocate)

Cheung Hoi Yan Emily v Daniel’s Group Holdings Limited [2022] HKDC 1134
Successfully defended the Respondent on liability and allowed the Respondent’s appeal against the findings of Form 9. Costs was awarded to the Respondent. (Sole advocate)

Chau Yuen Heung v Jekco Elevators Limited and Hon Hing Enterprises Limited & Anor. [2023] HKCFI 2750
The Plaintiff suffered personal injuries during an accident when she was a passenger to the lift maintained by the Defendant, and the third parties are respectively the management company of the building and the owner of the lift. Successfully obtain judgment against the third parties in the third-party proceedings on the basis of Civil Liability Contribution Ordinance. (with Mr. Gary Chung)

Tsang Pak Yuen v 富源希望工程裝飾有限公司 (HCPI 108/2021)
Successfully set aside interlocutory judgment unconditionally, entered against the Defendant for its failure to give notice of intention to defend. (with Mr. Gary Chung)

Yip Ying Ching v Lapco Service Limited [2021] HKDC 309
Successfully defended the Plaintiff’s claim for damages as the Plaintiff was sufficiently compensated by her employees’ compensation award. The Defendant was successful in arguing that the Plaintiff was able to return to her pre-Accident employment, therefore, there was no award for future loss of earnings and no loss of earning capacity (with Mr. Gary Chung)

Kan Che Sing v Hop On Management Company Limited & Anor. [2019] HKDC 1576
Successfully defended the Plaintiff employee’s peronal injuries claim and successfully claimed against the third party for contribution from the EC proceeding (with Mr. Gary Chung)

Xie Quyun v Easy Living Property Management Limited
Appeared for the Respondent to defend against the Applicant’s claim for employees’ compensation. The main issue was whether the personal injuries occurred in the course of and arose out of the Applicant’s employment under s.5 ECO (with Mr. Gary Chung).

Liu Wan Yuk v The Path of Health Limited [2020] HKCFI 2803
Successfully defended the Plaintiff’s claim for damages as the Plaintiff was sufficiently compensated by her employees’ compensation award. The Defendant was successful in arguing that the Plaintiff was able to return to her pre-Accident employment, therefore, there was no award for future loss of earnings and no loss of earning capacity (with Mr. Gary Chung)

Hong Chun Tak v Yip Kan Kee Contracting Co Ltd & Ors [2021] HKDC 352, [2021] HKDC 600

Assisted Mr. Gary Chung, Counsel for the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board, to assist the Court on the issue of whether the 2nd Respondent was a principal contractor for the purposes of the ECO. Successfully argue that the 2nd Respondent (i.e. the unsuccessful party at trial) should be liable to pay the Board’s costs, based on the 2nd Respondent’s conduct throughout the trial. The Board further argued that the principles laid down by the Court of Final Appeal in Wo Chun Wah v Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board (2019) 22 HKCFAR 495 are inapplicable in the present case.

方木溪 對 吳金妹及曾漢生經營的曾潮記及另二人[2020] HKDC 24, [2020] HKDC 243, [2020] HKDC 714

Assisted Mr. Gary Chung, Counsel for the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board on: (1) the issue of quantum, and (2) costs variation applications and arguments on the Board’s liability and exposure on costs under the Court of Final Appeal’s decision in Wo Chun Wah v Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board (2019) 22 HKCFAR 495.

Yeung Tung Wa v Leung Man Wai & Ors. (DCPI 1677/2019)
Advising on the defendants on liability and quantum. The main defence of the defendants was that the plaintiff failed to comply with the defendants’ work instructions, thus, the defendants should not be liable for the employee’s injuries while carrying out authorized work.

After the exchange of witness statement, discovery and interrogatories, the plaintiff accepted the defendants’ sanctioned payment.


Yip Lai Heung v 伍炳榮 & Ors. (DCEC 1252/2016) – Matter resolved

This case involves a relatively novel legal argument on the construction and applicability of section 2(1)(b) of the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance: whether the applicant was employed by the 3rd and 4th respondent for the purpose of their trade. The judgment, in this case, is significant in the development of case laws in Hong Kong regarding s.2(1)(b) statutory exception, thus, reported in [2022] 3 HKLRD 665.

In the more recent judgment on costs dealing with the Applicant’s application to vary the cost order nisi ([2023] HKDC 595), the Judge accepted the Applicant’s argument that it was reasonable in all circumstances to join the 2nd Respondent in the proceedings, despite the Court having ultimately found that the 2nd Respondent was not liable.

Furthermore, the Court once again reiterated the principles of awarding a Sanderson and Bullock Order, especially in the specific circumstances of the case of distributing hardship to achieve justice.


HKSAR v Cheung Ling Chu Sally & Pong hui Kwai [2021] HKDC 188
Successfully defended the 1st Defendant against a charge of conspiracy for an agent to accept advantages. The Court held that the 1st Defendant’s referral of clients to the 2nd Defendant’s company was not “in relation to her principal’s affairs or business” as such conduct was not “aimed” at her principal or “intended to influence or affect” her principal’s affairs or business, by applying the Court of Final Appeal’s judgment in Secretary for Justice v Chan Chi Wan Stephen (2017) 20 HKCFAR 98, and Privy Council’s decision in Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption v Ch’ng Poh [1997] HKLRD 652 (led by Mr. Derek Chan SC, with Mr. Joseph Lee)


Tai Cheung Properties v Cheng Wood Ming (HCA 412/2014)
Plaintiff’s summonses for cost variation and expunging witness statement after the hearing for assessment of damages (assisted Mr. Frederick HF Chan)

Assessment of damages for the Plaintiff employer against the Defendant employee for breach of employment contract, when the employee deliberately deleted proprietary data from the Plaintiff’s database. The issues before the Court are the basis of measuring damages for breach of contract in cases of destruction of property and the remoteness of damages claimed (assisted Mr. Frederick HF Chan)

Zhou Xi v Wong Wing Chiu Sampson (HCMP 630/2017)
For the Plaintiff to recover assets from email scam (assisted Mr. Robin D’Souza)

Keyland Holding Group Limited v Lai Tsz Him & Ors.
For the Plaintiff to seek urgent ex parte application for interim injunctive relief against the Defendants for access to the company’s online operating system, return of company properties and to restrain the Defendants from carrying out similar business that is being conducted by the Company (assisted Mr. Robin D’Souza)

Liu Ken Wing & Anor v Chan Chor Har Ivy (HCA 3039/2017)
Successfully resisted the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment for dishonored cheque (with Mr. Robin D’Souza)

To Pui Kui v Hultucktong Enterprises Limited (HCA 1709/2012)
Appeared for the plaintiff for application for summary judgment and to resist the defendant’s application for stay of proceedings (with Mr. Jeffrey Tam)


Mohan Selvaraj v The Registrar of Companies & Ors., HCMP 2068/2018

Appeared for the 2nd defendant in a matter under s.42 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622) (sole advocate)


Fong Kam Mui v Land Strategic Ltd. HCA 2264/2014

For the Plaintiff’s claim for adverse possession against the Defendant (assisted Mr. Frederick HF Chan)

Ting Shuk Man, Sylvia v Wong Tak [2020] HKCFI 409
Appeared for the Plaintiff in a tenancy dispute. The main issues were whether the Plaintiff entered into the tenancy agreement personally as principal and landlord or whether she did so as an agent, and whether the doctrine of tenancy by estoppel operated in the Plaintiff’s favour to debar the Defendant from denying the validity and enforceability of the tenancy agreement.

So Chui Wah v Qu Xuanbai [2022] HKCFI 1750

Appeared for the Plaintiff and successfully obtained a declaration against the Defendant that the beneficial and legal interest of the subject property was solely vested in the Plaintiff. (Sole advocate)


Choi Kwok Wah v Director of Legal Aid, LAA 1/2018

Appeared for the appellant in appealing legal aid’s decision to discharge the appellant’s legal aid certificate in relation to a claim for adverse possession (sole advocate)