Court of Appeal dismissed an employee’s compensation claim for allegedly work-related mental injury
Employees’ Compensation
Background
In Chow Kin Hang Ali v Secretary for Justice for and on behalf of Food and Environmental Hygiene Department [2025] HKCA 324, the Appellant is a foreman employed by Hong Kong’s Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”), who appealed a District Court decision dismissing his claim for compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282) (the “Ordinance”). Mr. Chow alleged that he was forced to transfer to a new enforcement unit in June 2017 and it exacerbated his pre-existing mental health condition, constituting a “personal injury by accident” arising from his employment.
The Appellant had been diagnosed with adjustment disorder in 2015 and was receiving psychological treatment. In June 2017, he was assigned to the District Enforcement Team (“DET”), a role he resisted, citing health concerns. After his exemption request was denied, he threatened to jump off a building on his first day in the new role and displayed a protest banner. He was hospitalized briefly but returned to work shortly afterward.
In 2019, Mr. Chow filed a claim, arguing that the FEHD’s negligence in assigning him to the DET despite his known mental health issues caused his psychological injury. The Respondent (Secretary for Justice, representing FEHD) contested liability, asserting that no “accident” under the Ordinance had occurred and that his condition predated the incident.
Key Ruling:
CA upheld the District Court’s dismissal of the claim, concluding:-
1. No “Accident” Under the Ordinance:
CA found no evidence of an “accident” as defined by section 5(1) of the Ordinance. The Appellant’s dissatisfaction with his transfer and his extreme reaction were deemed foreseeable consequences of his pre-existing condition, not an unexpected workplace mishap. The interactions with supervisors were routine, and the posting itself was lawful. The employer’s actions, including denying his exemption request, were neither negligent nor extraordinary.
2. Pre-Existing Condition:
Medical evidence confirmed that the Appellant’s adjustment disorder predated the DET transfer. CA ruled that his symptoms were not caused by any incident but were a continuation of his prior illness. Thus, he failed to prove a causal link between his employment and any new injury.
3. Procedural Challenges Rejected:
The Appellant raised multiple procedural objections, including the alleged improper conduct by the judge and the Respondent’s legal team. CA dismissed all these, noting:
1. Witness statements were properly admitted.
2. The judge’s interruptions were within case management discretion.
3. No evidence supported claims of bias or collusion.
4. Quantum Issues (Obiter):
Even if liability were established, CA agreed with the District Court that the Appellant was not entitled to any compensation. In particular, regarding section 10 of the Ordinance, CA upheld the District Court’s ruling (at [104] to [114] of [2023] HKDC 237 citing Yu Tak Ching v Chu Tung Shing & Anor (unreported, CACV 25/2008, 8 October 2009), at [24]-[26], where CA held that compensation should be reduced if the employee received or is capable of receiving salary during such sick leave period) that full salary payments during sick leave offsets any entitlement under section 10 of the Ordinance, and to allow otherwise would contravene the rule against double recovery.
The judgment underscores the important rule that statutory compensation for mental injury requires proof of a direct causal link between a workplace “accident” and a new injury, excluding pre-existing conditions. Routine employment decisions (e.g., transfers) are not “accidents” merely because they cause distress. It further confirms that the Ordinance does not permit double recovery, and paid sick leaves shall be deducted from the calculation under section 10 of the Ordinance.
Carol Lee, instructed by Tony Kan & Co, acted for the respondent.
Carol Lee
Carol has a diverse civil and commercial practice that includes land and property, equity and trust, tort, corporate and companies, probate and administration, disciplinary, and public law. Carol’s previous experience as an analyst and controller in the supply chain sector with Fortune 500 companies before joining the Bar enhances her strong commercial acumen, making her an effective litigator and legal advisor.
More details can be found in Carol’s profile.
This article was first published on 30 April 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.