text

Dec 10 2025

Hong Kong is actively pushing to become a global innovation hub. Plans include installing cameras in all taxis by 2026, as well as promoting a low-altitude economy of camera-equipped drones. However, such initiatives come with privacy and data concerns. The use of CCTV surveillance, and cameras in drones and passenger-carrying vehicles, are among them.

Hong Kong’s Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (“PCPD”) has issued two new guidance documents on camera use. The first concerns use of CCTV surveillance, and the second on use of video cameras on drones and vehicles (jointly the “Camera Use Updates”). The Camera Use Updates explain how businesses/ employers and the public should comply with the law when deploying CCTV systems, drones, and in-vehicle cameras. We summarise the key considerations below.

The Camera Use Updates and the law

A first point to note is that the Camera Use Updates are guidance notes only, not new legislation. They do not create additional legal obligations, they only explain how existing legal provisions apply to modern technologies and everyday scenarios. The Camera Use Updates help employers and the public to interpret and apply the law and adopt best practices, ensuring compliance in respecting individual privacy. They are helpful documents to help readers avoid legal liability in a safe and efficient way.

The Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (“PDPO”) is Hong Kong’s primary data protection law. It sets out legally binding requirements for the collection, use, and handling of personal data, enforced through six Data Protection Principles. For Tanner De Witt’s article on Hong Kong Market Entry, Data Protection, and the PDPO, please click here.

CCTV Surveillance

The CCTV guidance note sets out that CCTV should only be used when necessary and only in a proportionate way. Transparency is essential. People must know when they are being recorded, and clear notices should be displayed at entry points and monitored areas.

Data retention and security are critical concerns. Footage should not be kept longer than needed and must be stored securely to prevent leaks or misuse. Businesses should conduct Privacy Impact Assessments before installation to identify risks and mitigation measures.

The CCTV guidance note warns against covert surveillance, except as a last resort. Cameras should never be placed in private spaces such as changing rooms or rest areas. Misuse of footage, including sharing on social media, may breach the PDPO and lead to criminal liability.

Camera Use in Drones and Vehicles

For drones, operators should plan flight paths carefully to avoid private premises. Recording criteria should be defined in advance, and technology should be used to blur faces where possible. Wireless transmissions should be encrypted and stored on secure storage devices. Drone owners are reminded that lost drones can expose sensitive data if safeguards are weak.

Transparency is, once again, of utmost importance. The drones and vehicles guidance note suggest creative approaches such as QR codes on notices, flashing lights on drones, and banners at drone launch sites. These measures both inform the public and build trust with the drone owner.

For in-vehicle cameras, justification is key. Continuous inward-facing recording should only be used when necessary, because passengers expect privacy in taxis and private cars. Notices should be placed both inside the vehicle and on the exterior in a conspicuous way. The PCPD has provided a sample sticker here for this purpose.

Footage retention policies must also be clear. Recordings should be deleted promptly if no incidents occur and stored securely with encryption and access controls. Non-removable storage media should be considered, to reduce risk of theft or misuse.

Best Practices for Businesses

  1. Assess necessity: Use cameras only when there is a clear need.
  1. Ensure transparency: Inform people through notices and policies.
  1. Limit data collection: Record only what is required for the purpose of your camera use.
  1. Secure data: Protect footage from unauthorized access.
  1. Review retention: Delete data when it is no longer needed.
  1. Conduct privacy impact assessments: Identify and reduce risks before deployment.

Conclusion

Following the guidance outlined in the Camera Use Updates will reduce legal risk and protect a business’s reputation. CCTV, drone, and in-vehicle camera users should review their current practices now, update relevant policies, and implement new staff training.

Camera Use Updates, supplementary materials

For the PCPD’s media statement made for the launch of the Camera Use Updates, please click here.

For the PCPD’s document on “Guidance on the Use of CCTV Surveillance”, please click here.

For the PCPD’s supplementary information leaflet on CCTV titled “Tips on the Use of CCTV Surveillance,” please click here.

For the PCPD’s document on “Guidance on the Use of Video Cameras on Drones and Vehicles,” please click here.

For the PCPD’s supplementary document on “Responsible Use of Drones and In-Vehicle Cameras” information leaflet, please click here.

If you would like more information on employment related legal matters, please contact:

Russell Bennett

Partner | Email

Disclaimer: This publication is general in nature and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters dealt with in this publication.

Featured Articles

Insights
What Is the Right Measure of Compensation in Hong Kong Discrimination Claims?
Insights
News update: Finfluencers on the SFC regulatory radar
Insights
News update: Secondary Trading of Tokenised Authorised Investment Products Permitted in Hong Kong
Insights
News update: Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner claws back privacy protection from agentic AI tools
Insights
Enforcement action follows PCPD finding of ineffective data privacy training
Insights
What you need to know about the Protection of Critical Infrastructures (Computer Systems) Ordinance, the cybersecurity legislation in Hong Kong (Part 6)

text

Nov 11 2025

Maternity Rights

Under Hong Kong Law a pregnant woman is entitled to maternity benefits from her employer, provided she is employed under a “continuous contract”. That requires employment of over 18 hours per week, for four or more consecutive weeks (from 18 January 2026, “continuous contract” will be relaxed to a total of 68 hours over 4 weeks). The maternity benefits include:

1. Maternity leave of:

  • 14 weeks leave to be taken continuously;
  • An additional time equivalent to any period of time between the expected date of birth and the actual due date where delivery occurs after the expected due date; and
  • Up to 4 weeks additional leave in the event of illness or disability related to the birth or pregnancy. This is in addition to the entitlement to sick leave.

The 14 weeks leave would start 4 weeks before the expected date of birth, unless the employer and employee can agree a date, which would usually be between 4 and 2 weeks before the birth. If the baby is born early, and prior to the agreed commencement date, the 14 weeks maternity period will start on the date of the birth.

The pregnant employee will need to have given notice of her pregnancy and intention to take maternity leave to the employer within seven days of giving birth.

2. If the woman has been employed for over 40 weeks and has given the employer a certificate of pregnancy and of the expected due date (if so required by the employer), she is also entitled to maternity leave pay. This is payable for the 14 week period. The pay is at a rate of 4/5ths of the employee’s average daily wages. Maternity leave pay for the additional 4 weeks period (11th to 14th week of the maternity leave) is subject to a total cap of HK$80,000 for each employee.

Employers, after payment of 14 weeks’ maternity leave pay, may apply for reimbursement of the cost of the additional 4 weeks (11th to 14th weeks) of statutory maternity leave pay through its Reimbursement of Maternity Leave Pay Scheme (“RMLP Scheme”). Employers wishing to apply for reimbursement are required to keep records including:

  • employers’ payment records of the 14 weeks’ statutory maternity leave pay (e.g. salary slips, bank transaction records, etc.);
  • wage records of the 12 months preceding the commencement of maternity leave; and
  • proof of pregnancy provided by the employee to the employer (e.g. medical certificates specifying the expected dates of confinement, medical certificates or certificates of attendance for medical examinations in relation to pregnancy).

There is a one-stop online portal.

Maternity leave pay does not extend to any additional maternity leave due to late delivery and/or illness or disability related to the birth or pregnancy. The female employee may however take sick leave in these circumstances and may be entitled to sickness allowance. In this regard, the Hong Kong Employment (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 provides that a certificate of attendance issued by a registered medical practitioner, registered Chinese medicine practitioner, nurse or midwife (as opposed to the previous requirement of a medical certificate issued by a registered medical practitioner) is now acceptable documentary proof for the purposes of entitling a pregnant employee to sickness allowance for any day on which the employee has attended a medical examination in relation to her pregnancy. 

3. A valuable protection is the prohibition on termination of employment. Unless the employee is summarily dismissed for gross misconduct, the employer is barred from terminating the employment of an employee who has given notice of her pregnancy.

Under Hong Kong law it does not matter whether the reason for the dismissal is linked to the pregnancy or not. The prohibition is absolute. Indeed, even if the employer is unaware of the pregnancy and gives notice, the employer must withdraw the notice if the employee gives immediate notice of the pregnancy.

If the employer terminates the employment in breach of this law, then they must pay the employee all of her wages and maternity pay up to the date on which the maternity leave would have ended. In addition, the employer commits a criminal offence and is liable for the following additional sums:

  • An additional month’s wages; and
  • For employees with over 2 years of service, they may also be entitled to additional benefits of up to HK$150,000.
  • Payment in lieu of notice.
  • Fine of HK$100,000

4. A pregnant employee who has given a medical certificate cannot be assigned to perform hazardous and strenuous work which may cause a risk to the pregnancy. If her job involves that type of work, then the employer must change the employee’s duties within 14 days of the certificate being presented.

Pregnant women who wish to utilise these rights need to make sure that the proper notices are served and also that their employers are aware of these rights. It is possible for employers to agree more generous maternity rights and even include these in the employment contract. Indeed many employers, especially international firms, have consistent maternity benefits irrespective of the location and the local law, with many employers offering maternity leave of 6 months or more. However, in the absence of agreement the only entitlement is to the benefits and rights set out above.

Part Time Working

As mentioned above, to take advantage of the maternity benefits under the Employment ordinance an employee must be employed under a “continuous contract”.

However it is not only the maternity rights which are dependent upon this. Many of the rights under the Employment Ordinance are dependent upon the employee qualifying for those rights by having a “continuous contract”.

In effect this requires employees to work over 68 hours over a 4-week period. Many mothers returning to work may wish to change their working hours and work part time or on some other schedule, such as alternate weeks or some other “job-share” arrangement. The employee must ensure that she meets the requirement of 68 hours over 4 weeks in order to qualify for many of the protections under the Employment Ordinance. If she does not the employee will often fail to qualify as being employed under a continuous contract and will lose much of the protection under the Employment Ordinance, including to:

  • Sickness leave and sick pay;
  • Statutory Paid leave;
  • Employment Protection; and
  • Severance and Long Service Pay.

Mothers returning to work on changed hours and working arrangements should take care to make sure that they are not inadvertently waiving many of their statutory rights.

Discrimination

Many mothers returning to work also face the risk of discrimination against them by their employers. This may be for many reasons such as resentment at the claiming of maternity benefits, a perceived reduction in commitment or flexibility, or a preference for a temporary replacement who performed the job while the employee was on maternity leave.

However, no matter what the reason the law provides protection against discrimination on the grounds of sex, pregnancy and family status. Employers are not entitled to discriminate against employees on the grounds of their pregnancy or sex or family status or treat them less favourably than the employer would treat someone who was not in the same position.

Forms of discrimination include termination, other detriment and the denial of opportunities which would have been available but for the discrimination, as well as direct discrimination where the employer deliberately places an employee at a disadvantage because of their sex, or pregnancy. The law also prohibits indirect discrimination.

Therefore if an employer, for example, treats the part-time employees less favourably, this may have the indirect effect of discriminating against women and mothers if the majority of part–time workers are in that category.

A good example of discrimination is the case of Lam Wing Lai vs Y.T. Cheng (Chingtai) Limited on 23rd December 2005. In that case a secretary to the Directors went on maternity leave. She had also had several periods of Sick Leave due to pregnancy complications. She was replaced during her maternity leave by a temporary secretary.

On returning to work, she suspected her employers wished to terminate her employment and she enquired as to their intentions. After a short period they made allegations of poor performance and terminated her employment. The Court reviewed the evidence and decided that one of the reasons for the dismissal was discrimination on the grounds of her pregnancy, sex and family status.

The employee was awarded compensation for loss of income of HK$88,500 and injury to feelings of HK$75,000. Her salary had been HK $15,800pm.

Another more recent discrimination case is 秦秀清 對 長鴻鋁窗裝飾工程有限公司 CHUN SAU CHING v CHEUNG HUNG ALUMINUM WINDOW DECORATION WORKS LTD) – [2020] 2 HKC 146. In that case, an employee employed for over two years was asked to resign (which she refused) notwithstanding that she had informed the company of her pregnancy. She subsequently suffered a miscarriage prior to receiving her notice of termination.  The employee lodged a complaint with the Equal Opportunities Commission which filed an action at the District Court on her behalf. At trial, the company alleged that the employee was dismissed due to her poor work performance. However, the Court found her to be a credible witness and determined that her employer had terminated her employment on the grounds of her pregnancy.

The employee was awarded compensation for injury to feelings of HK$90,000, loss of income of HK$33,000 as well as HK$10,000 exemplary damages. Her monthly salary had been HK$11,000.

Parties in discrimination proceedings usually bear their own legal costs. In this case however the Court considered the company’s conduct in the proceedings to be unreasonable and ordered the employer to pay the employee’s legal costs.

Mothers returning to work should be aware that discrimination on the grounds of their position and status as mothers or by reason of them having taken maternity leave, is unlawful. The discrimination can also be indirect and unintentional. Nevertheless such conduct by the employer will be unlawful if it places employees in that protected category in a less favourable position than the one they would have been in but for their sex or status.

 

Russell Bennett

If you have any questions, please contact Russell Bennett.

Russell Bennett

Partner | Email

Disclaimer: This publication is general in nature and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters dealt with in this publication.

Featured Articles

Insights
What Is the Right Measure of Compensation in Hong Kong Discrimination Claims?
Insights
News update: Finfluencers on the SFC regulatory radar
Insights
News update: Secondary Trading of Tokenised Authorised Investment Products Permitted in Hong Kong
Insights
News update: Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner claws back privacy protection from agentic AI tools
Insights
Enforcement action follows PCPD finding of ineffective data privacy training
Insights
What you need to know about the Protection of Critical Infrastructures (Computer Systems) Ordinance, the cybersecurity legislation in Hong Kong (Part 6)

text

Nov 05 2025

In Hong Kong when most people mention “helpers” they actually mean a “Foreign Domestic Helper” (“FDH”) employed from overseas via a recruitment agency or directly via an advertisement or referrals.

In order to employ a FDH and obtain a work visa for that employment, the employer must enter into a special type of contract inclusive of (1) a Standard Employment Contract (ID 407), as specified by the Director of Immigration and (2) a visa application to the Immigration Department, the form of which contains various undertakings by the employer. The Standard Employment Contract between the employer and the FDH must be submitted and it and its contents are integral parts of the application.

When applying to hire a FDH, it is important for the employer to be familiar with the content and legal effect of the documents being submitted, the visa restrictions of an FDH visa and their legal responsibilities.

Where those responsibilities are breached, not only will the FDH face possible revocation of visa and prosecution, there may also be heavy criminal penalties for the employers. If the employer has:

  1. assisted or permitted the FDH’s breach of the conditions of stay, attached to their visa or
  2. made false statements or representations to the Immigration department in seeking the FDH’s visa,

Then they may be guilty of serious criminal offences under sections 41 and/or 42 Immigration Ordinance rendering them liable to prosecution and, upon conviction, to fines and imprisonment.

Below we highlight some of the most common misconceptions and dangers for employers:

1: “I am uncomfortable with sharing my apartment with a helper, I will just hire a helper but then arrange for them to “live out” at a nearby boarding house.”

However in making the application:

  1. Clause 3 of the Standard Employment Contract states that “the Helper shall work and reside in the Employer’s residence”. It also requires the employer to list details of that accommodation within the employer’s residence.
  2. The undertakings in the visa application (ID988B) include that “The Helper will reside only in the residence as stated in clause 3 of the above mentioned employment contract” (only those continuously employed and living out from before 1 April 2003 are exempted).
  3. That requirement, as part of the contract, will be one of the FDH’s visa conditions of stay.

Therefore the employer and FDH are making a statement or representation that the FDH will be residing within the employer’s residence and that is a condition of the visa. Contrary to popular belief, it is therefore illegal to employ a FDH and make arrangements for the FDH to “live-out” either at a nearby boarding house or at a friend or family member’s residence (unless the FDH has been continuously employed by you and has lived out since before 1 April 2003).

By doing so, you would also have given false information to the Immigration Department for the purposes of obtaining the visa.  This is an offence under section 42 of the Immigration Ordinance and an offender is liable to a maximum fine of HK$150,000 and imprisonment for 14 years.

In Hong Kong it is likely that an employer found guilty of this offence would receive an immediate and potentially lengthy prison sentence, notwithstanding a clear record.

2: “I work full-time and I do not have any children to look after, I will just “sponsor” an FDH, but only hire her part-time.”

It is an offence under the Immigration Ordinance for an FDH to take up employment with any person other than the employer named in his/her visa.

Clause 4(b) of the Standard Employment Contract states that an FDH is permitted to work only with the contractual employer. This clause also forms part of the conditions of stay imposed on the FDH.

One of the undertakings of the employer in the visa or “sponsor” application form is “I will not ask, cause or allow the Helper to take up any other employment with any other person during his/her stay in [Hong Kong] and within the contractual period specified in [the contract]”.

By hiring a part-time FDH, allowing your FDH to work part-time for another person, you may:

  1. Have potentially made a false statement or representation in applying for the visa;
  2. Be aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring an FDH to breach a condition of stay;
  3. Be aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring the FDH to take up employment with another person in breach of the Immigration Ordinance; and
  4. Be employing someone who is not lawfully employable.

This will render the FDH and/or you liable to criminal prosecution and if found guilty to maximum fines of $50,000, $150,000 or $350,000 and imprisonment for a maximum of 2, 3 or 14 years (depending upon the offence).

Section 17I of the Immigration Ordinance  also makes it and offence to be employer of a person who is not lawfully employable with penalties (depending upon rlevnet circumstances) ranging from a maximum fine up to HK$500,000 and imprisonment up to 10 years.

3: “I don’t need a full time helper. I will just ask one of the helper’s in my block, or my friend’s helper to do a few hours on Tuesdays and Fridays.”

If the part time helper is a FDH, then by hiring her on a part time basis when you are not her contractual employer under a Standard Employment Contract and her visa may cause you and the FDH to be guilty of many of the same offences listed above including:

  1. aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring an FDH to breach a condition of stay;
  2. aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring the FDH to take up employment with another person in breach of the Immigration Ordinance; and
  3. employing someone who is not lawfully employable.

4: “I want to hire an FDH to look after my parents at their home but my parents do not have adequate assets.”

You cannot enter into a contract where the address specified on the contract is not your address.  In general if there is a genuine need, the Immigration Department may accept a financial proof provided by the employer’s family member in support of the application for employing an FDH made by an elderly person.

In some situations, one may apply to the Immigration Department for special approval to employ a FDH for his or her parents and for the FDH to reside at the parents’ home.  Under this arrangement, the child would be the FDH’s contractual employer but he or she would be living and working at the parents’ residence, with approval of the Immigration Department.  This may be possible where the child can provide justifiable reasons why this is necessary, for example, because of the parents’ ill health, and relevant supporting documents are provided.  Each case will be decided on its own merits. The key issue is to be open and honest and to provide detailed explanations when making the application.

5: “I know it is technically not allowed, but it is not a big deal, and I won’t get caught anyway.”

It is a big deal and people are frequently caught. The Immigration Department actively enforces these laws and requirements. Many instances come to light (often much later) including after reports from enemies, neighbours, former spouses, in the context of employment claims by FDHs or from security guards seeking a cash reward from the Immigration Department.  Many people go to prison every year for the above offences and situations.

What CAN I do?

Unlike FDHs, local domestic helpers do not require visas and are not subject to the above restrictions.  Therefore, if you find yourself in one of the above situations, you can consider hiring a local domestic helper.  You can do this via the “Smart Living” online system run by the Employee’s Retraining Board (ERB)

All employers should also remember that FDHs are all entitled to and receive the full protection of Hong Kong law including the Employment Ordinance and the discrimination ordinances (covering Race, Disability, Sex, Pregnancy and Family Status).  As such, FDH’s are entitled to, amongst other things, paid rest days, statutory holidays, annual leave, sick leave and maternity leave. Employers are prohibited from terminating an FDH by reason of her pregnancy. Failure to honour the obligations under the Employment Ordinance can also be a criminal offence. For more information, see also our article Working Mothers: Maternity Rights under Hong Kong Law.

Russell Bennett

If you have any questions, please contact Russell Bennett.

Russell Bennett

Partner | Email

Disclaimer: This publication is general in nature and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters dealt with in this publication.

Featured Articles

Insights
What Is the Right Measure of Compensation in Hong Kong Discrimination Claims?
Insights
News update: Finfluencers on the SFC regulatory radar
Insights
News update: Secondary Trading of Tokenised Authorised Investment Products Permitted in Hong Kong
Insights
News update: Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner claws back privacy protection from agentic AI tools
Insights
Enforcement action follows PCPD finding of ineffective data privacy training
Insights
What you need to know about the Protection of Critical Infrastructures (Computer Systems) Ordinance, the cybersecurity legislation in Hong Kong (Part 6)

text

Oct 13 2025

A person’s “marital status” is one of the protected characteristics under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance (“SDO”).

In the case of Cheuk Kit Man v FWD Life Insurance Company (Bermuda) Limited and Others [2025] Ms Cheuk claimed against FWD Life Insurance Company (Bermuda) Limited (“FWD”) and various managers on the basis that her termination was in part motivated by the fact that she was married to another former employee.  She alleged that the termination therefore amounted to a breach of contract and unlawful discrimination under the SDO.

In the earlier case of Wong Lai Wan Avril v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd [2010] (“Prudential”) an employee alleged that her employment was terminated because she was the wife of a specific individual which constituted marital status discrimination by her employer. The Court dismissed the employer’s application to strike out the claim and held that there was a reasonably arguable case that taking into account a marriage to a specific person could constitute “marital status” discrimination. 

Case Summary

Ms Cheuk was employed by FWD as Senior Agency Director. Shortly thereafter, Ms Cheuk’s husband, Mr Billy Ng (“Mr Ng”) also joined FWD.

Subsequently, Mr Ng gave notice to FWD to terminate his employment.  On the same day of Mr Ng’s notice, Ms Cheuk’s direct supervisor initiated termination of Ms Cheuk’s employment.  3 days later, FWD formally gave notice to terminate her employment without any reason for termination.  At one point, Ms Cheuk learnt that her employment was terminated because she was married to Mr Ng, which the Court found to be a real reason for her termination.

Contrary to the allegation by Ms Cheuk, however, the Court held that this did not constitute discrimination by reason of marital status under the SDO. the court reviewed the earlier decision in Prudential, the legislation and also the UK case of Hawkins v Atex Group [2012] ICR 1315. The court stated that:-

127.  What this analysis highlights is the importance of identifying whether the difference in treatment complained of is attributable to the fact of the marital status, or the identity of the spouse. The UK anti-discrimination legislation is targeted at the former, not the latter.  This is the case for the SDO as well, as can be seen from the wording of ss.4, 7 and 10.

130.  On the point about the approach to interpretation:

130.1  I bear in mind that the legislation should be interpreted with a purposive approach so that its objects can be achieved: Tsang v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd [2002] 2 HKLRD 677 at [23] to [26] (Mayo VP);

130.2  whilst the SDO should of course be interpreted as far as possible to conform with the Basic Law (see in particular article 25) and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (see in particular article 22), this does not mean that it should be interpreted otherwise than in accordance with its plain meaning: cf. M v Secretary for Justice at [57] (Tang VP).” [underlined is our emphasis]

Separately, the Court found that there was no implied term in Ms Cheuk’s employment contract preventing FWD from terminating it without reason. Rather, it contained an express and unrestricted right of termination to be exercised by either party.

Ultimately, Ms Cheuk’s case was dismissed by the Court.

Meaning of “martial status”

It should be noted that under the SDO, the term “marital status” is defined as:-

The state or condition of being –

In Prudential the Court adopted a “generous interpretation” to give a wide meaning to the term “marital status”, which seems to suggest that marital status discrimination under SDO could cover discrimination based on “the identity of the person to whom the complainant is married or related”.

In contrast, and as mentioned above, the decision in Cheuk seems to clarify that any purposive interpretation of the SDO cannot go against the plain meaning of the words. The Court in Cheuk also clearly stated that the focus of marital status discrimination is on the the general status or state as defined above, not the identity of the person’s specific spouse (as may be applicable).

Implications for Employers

Cheuk case seems to set out the clear scope of the meaning of the term “marital status” under the SDO. Notwithstanding this, employers should handle dismissal of employees carefully so as to minimise the risk of any unnecessary dispute. In particular, and based on how the dispute arose in Cheuk case, employers should be careful in making:-

In situations where an employer suspects that the termination process may become adversarial or contentious, it is preferrable for the employer to keep its own internal and contemporaneous evidence setting out the lawful and genuine reason for dismissal.  Please refer to our article on Legal Update: Importance of Contemporaneous Records in Defending Against Discrimination Claim.

 

Russell Bennett and Mark Chiu

 

If you have any questions, please contact Russell Bennett or Mark Chiu.

Russell Bennett

Partner | Email

Mark Chiu

Partner | Email

Disclaimer: This publication is general in nature and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters dealt with in this publication.

Featured Articles

Insights
What Is the Right Measure of Compensation in Hong Kong Discrimination Claims?
Insights
News update: Finfluencers on the SFC regulatory radar
Insights
News update: Secondary Trading of Tokenised Authorised Investment Products Permitted in Hong Kong
Insights
News update: Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner claws back privacy protection from agentic AI tools
Insights
Enforcement action follows PCPD finding of ineffective data privacy training
Insights
What you need to know about the Protection of Critical Infrastructures (Computer Systems) Ordinance, the cybersecurity legislation in Hong Kong (Part 6)

text

Oct 08 2025

In the recent case of Chan Man Sau[1] (“Chan”), the District Court looked at whether ‘psychiatric trauma’ can be regarded as a workplace injury. We summarise the key points of the decision as to whether and what conduct can cause mental injury to an employee which is capable of constituting a workplace injury and in turn give rise to an employee’s compensation claim.

Relevant facts

Chan Man Sau (“Mr. Chan”) was a teacher at Elegantia College (the “School”). He commenced proceedings against the School, claiming work injury as a result of the following incidents:-

(i) a sharp corner of the signage to the male changing room scratched his head and caused bleeding as he retrieved an item from his locker (“the Head Injury claim”);

(ii) a colleague ‘criminally’ intimidated him by making remarks about ‘pranking’ and ‘killing’ him;

(iii) various students belittled him with strange looks and mocking comments which caused him to feel ‘enormous emotional pressure’;

(iv) an allegedly faulty office phone which caused him to feel ‘a lot of pressure and stress’ and ‘very concerned for his personal safety’ as colleagues were rendered unable to remind him to attend classes; and

(v) another colleague directed an emotional outburst towards him when trying to assist him with a computer issue, which caused him to become very ‘scared’ and ‘disrespected’ and ‘adversely affected his reputation’.

Court’s decision

Ultimately, the Court only ruled in favour of Mr. Chan for the Head Injury claim, but against him in respect of his other claims relating to mental injury.

However, in reaching its decision, the Court set out the following test relating verbal behaviour or conduct by an employer or other employees cause mental injury of an employee at the workplace:

English translation of original Chinese judgement[2]:

“… in discussions between employers and employees, if the employer uses inappropriate words, this canconstitute an ‘accident,’ but it must meet the criteria for ‘accident,’ in that the discussion’s contents must be ‘sudden and unfortunate’;”

“Whether or not the incident can constitute an ‘accident’ …depends on the way the said suspension or termination or employment or criticism of such took place… such conversations’ wording must necessarily be ‘abnormal, inappropriate’ and must be ‘sudden and unfortunate;” (underlined is our emphasis).

Implications for employers

Given the judgment in Chan, where the Court noted that certain inappropriate conduct (which is out of the ordinary) in the workplace can result in ‘psychiatric trauma’ constituting an injury at work, employers should be aware of their potential duties, obligations and liability in the relevant circumstances.

(1) Employer’s duty of care

Employers owe a general duty of care to ensure the health and safety of its employees at work[3].

In particular, if an employee seems emotionally stressed or vulnerable, the duty requires the employers to avoid causing psychiatric harm to employees, such as giving them more work than they can reasonably handle[4] and to take steps to protect them[5].

If inappropriate behaviour in workplace (whether by an employer directly or by other employees) can give rise to work injury as Chan suggests, it is possible that such incidents may also give rise to breach of this duty of care, which would result in further liability to the employer.

(2) Employer’s obligations

Given the decision in Chan, there may be cases where an employer will be required to notify the Commissioner for Labour about any ‘accident’ as it is required to do so under the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282) (“ECO”), regardless of whether the accident gives rise to compensation liability[6]. Further, the employer may be legally prohibited from dismissing an employee for a certain period of time until after the assessment of any incapacity of the employee[7].

(3) Employee’s rights

For workplace injuries, employees have a right to compensation as corresponding to their deemed Loss of Earning Capacity (“LOEC”). The decision in Chan means that it may be possible for an employee to claim LOEC and employees’ compensation for mental injury at work, not only physical injury.

However, for such ‘psychiatric trauma’ claims, LOEC calculation may be unpredictable. It is noted that for physical injuries, the First Schedule of the ECO has a list of injuries with corresponding LOEC percentages but there is none for ‘psychiatric trauma’. This may make accurate calculation and prediction of LOEC and compensation amounts in respect of mental injury less certain[8].

Conclusion

Chan shows that mental injury can arise at work in the appropriate circumstances which may give rise to employees’ compensation issues. Employers should be familiar with their potential liability and obligations in this regard and seek legal advice in case of doubt.

Employers may also wish to refer to the Occupational Safety and Health Branch of the Labour Department made some practical recommendations to help prevent the occurrence of work-related psychiatric injuries including having regular discussions on improving the working environment and facilities and giving clear instructions about work.

To know more about the details and scope of the employer’s duties in respect of the health and safety of employees, please see our other article here.

If you have any questions, please contact Russell Bennett or Mark Chiu.

Russell Bennett

Partner | Email

Mark Chiu

Partner | Email

Disclaimer: This publication is general in nature and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters dealt with in this publication.

[1] Chan Man Sau v. 風采中學(教育評議會主辦)法團校董會 [2025] HKDC 1354

[2] Original Chinese wording: 在僱主與僱員的談話中,僱主若用了不適當的字眼,可構成 “意外”,但要符合“意外”的定義,談話的內容要是 “突然發生且不幸; ”決定事件能否構成“意外”時…關鍵是執行或處理該停職、解僱或批評事件的方式…該說話必須要是“不一般、不適宜的”,還要是“突然發生且不幸的”;再者,此等說話需導致該僱員受到心理傷害 (underlined is our emphasis)

[3] Jerry Chen v Whirlpool (Hong Kong) Ltd [2006] HKCU 11, citing Wilsons & Clyde Coal Company v. English [1938] A.C. 57

[4] Walker v Northumberland County Council [1995] I.C.R. 702

[5] Barber v Somerset County Council [2004] I.C.R 457

[6] Section 15(1A), Employees’ Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282)

[7] Section 48(1)(a) of the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282)

[8] The Court will generally consider “factual evidence as well as the medical evidence,” such as that from “lay witnesses, medical documents, and medical experts.

Featured Articles

Insights
What Is the Right Measure of Compensation in Hong Kong Discrimination Claims?
Insights
News update: Finfluencers on the SFC regulatory radar
Insights
News update: Secondary Trading of Tokenised Authorised Investment Products Permitted in Hong Kong
Insights
News update: Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner claws back privacy protection from agentic AI tools
Insights
Enforcement action follows PCPD finding of ineffective data privacy training
Insights
What you need to know about the Protection of Critical Infrastructures (Computer Systems) Ordinance, the cybersecurity legislation in Hong Kong (Part 6)

text

Sep 23 2025

On 17 September 2025 the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong SAR delivered his 2025 Policy Address. Amongst the topics were several notable employment related issues. We summarise them below:

Statutory Minimum Wage (“SMW”)

Labour Support and Protection

Nurturing Talents

Other Relevant Information

Russell Bennett and Mark Chiu

For more information on employment matters, please contact:

Russell Bennett

Partner | Email

Mark Chiu

Partner | Email

Disclaimer: This publication is general in nature and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters dealt with in this publication.

Featured Articles

Insights
What Is the Right Measure of Compensation in Hong Kong Discrimination Claims?
Insights
News update: Finfluencers on the SFC regulatory radar
Insights
News update: Secondary Trading of Tokenised Authorised Investment Products Permitted in Hong Kong
Insights
News update: Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner claws back privacy protection from agentic AI tools
Insights
Enforcement action follows PCPD finding of ineffective data privacy training
Insights
What you need to know about the Protection of Critical Infrastructures (Computer Systems) Ordinance, the cybersecurity legislation in Hong Kong (Part 6)

text

Jun 10 2025

Tanner De Witt promotes Mark Chiu to Partner with effect from 5 June 2025

We are pleased to announce the promotion of Mark Chiu to partner with effect from 5 June 2025. Mark’s extensive experience in employment law, unwavering dedication to clients, and leadership within the firm make this promotion a well-deserved recognition of his contributions.

Mark is a key member of Tanner De Witt and advises clients on a wide range of employment-related matters, including both employers and employees on issues such as recruitment, termination, separation, post-termination restrictions, discrimination, harassment, drafting of handbooks and other HR related policies/ documents and other labour disputes.

Mark’s practice also includes contentious employment matters, where he has represented clients in the Labour Tribunal, the Court of First Instance, and the Court of Appeal. He has also conducted internal investigations into employee misconduct and serious breaches of employment contracts, as well as assisting clients in criminal investigations related to employment matters.

Russell Bennett, Head of Employment Practice says“This promotion for Mark is very well deserved. Since joining Tanner De Witt, Mark has played an integral role in the growth of the Employment Practice. He gives pragmatic advice, has excellent legal knowledge and actively mentors junior lawyers, helping to foster the culture of excellence within the team.”

Looking Ahead

Mark’s promotion reflects the firm’s commitment to strengthening its Employment Practice and rewarding outstanding talent. As partner, he will continue to drive the team’s success, ensuring clients receive top-tier, solution-oriented employment law advice.

Tanner De Witt promotes Natalie Lam and John Lee to Consultant with effect from 1 June 2025

We are also delighted to announce the promotions of Natalie Lam from our Restructuring and Insolvency practice and John Lee from our Corporate and Commercial practice to Consultant. Both Natalie and John have demonstrated remarkable skill, diligence, and dedication as Senior Associates, making invaluable contributions to our firm and clients. We look forward to their continued success in their new roles. 

Please join us in congratulating Mark, Natalie and John on their well-earned promotions. These achievements reflect not only their hard work but also Tanner De Witt’s commitment to fostering talent and rewarding excellence. We are excited for the future and the continued growth of our teams.

About Tanner De Witt

Tanner De Witt is an established and recommended independent law firm in Hong Kong.  Many of our lawyers have international law firm backgrounds and our firm and its lawyers receive top ratings from industry publications such as Chambers and Legal 500.

We provide legal advice and representation in the following areas: Corporate and Commercial; Banking and Finance; Regulatory and Compliance; Dispute Resolution (Litigation, Arbitration and Mediation); China Practice Group; Restructuring and Insolvency; Employment; Family; Immigration; Wills, Probate and Trusts; Fraud and Asset Tracing; Criminal Law and White Collar Crime; Intellectual Property; Privacy and Cybersecurity; Technology; and Notarial Services.

-END-

contact[email protected]       

+852 2573 5000

text

May 15 2025

Background

On 20 March 2025, the Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”) suspended the licenses of Mr Wong Ming Chung (“Mr Wong”), a “finfluencer”[1] also known as Franky Wong and as ““股票狙擊手”, for 16 months following his criminal conviction for providing investment advice on a subscription-based chat group on Telegram that he hosted without a license.

Mr Wong was a licensed representative of Tse’s Securities Limited, a SFC licensed corporation in Hong Kong, with Type 1 (Dealing in securities), Type 4 (Advising on securities) and Type 9 (Asset management) licenses at the relevant time. On 20 June 2024, the Eastern Magistrates’ Court convicted Mr Wong of one charge of carrying on a business of advising on securities when he was not licensed to do so following his guilty plea.

Although Mr Wong was an SFC-licensed representative at the relevant time, this only permitted him to act for the SFC licensed entity he was accredited to in carrying on business in the relevant regulated activities. However, Mr Wong operated the Telegram chat group in his personal capacity and carried out regulated activities outside the scope of his license.

In the circumstances, the SFC further considered that Mr Wong was not a fit and proper person to carry on regulated activities due to his criminal conviction, leading to the suspension.

Commentary

This case is an important reminder for all:

1) licensed persons that the capacity in which they carry out regulated activities is highly relevant. A SFC license permits a licensed person to carry out regulated activities under specific circumstances (and under specific conditions if applicable to the license) and should not be treated as a broad permit to carry out the regulated activity in any capacity and

2) who might be tempted to give financial advice or offer financial services as part of a social media presence in the hope of enhancing their online media presence and their levels of engagement.

This case is also helpful to highlight the SFC’s vigilance in carrying out its supervisory and regulatory functions, and that the SFC will investigate and carry out enforcement actions even for relatively less serious offences and breaches.

 

Russell Bennett and John Lee

 

For more information on employment matters, please contact:

Russell Bennett
Partner | Email

 

Disclaimer: This publication is general in nature and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters dealt with in this publication.

[1] Finfluencers, or financial influencers, are considered by the SFC to be individuals who leverage social media platforms to share investment-related content.

Featured Articles

Insights
What Is the Right Measure of Compensation in Hong Kong Discrimination Claims?
Insights
News update: Finfluencers on the SFC regulatory radar
Insights
News update: Secondary Trading of Tokenised Authorised Investment Products Permitted in Hong Kong
Insights
News update: Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner claws back privacy protection from agentic AI tools
Insights
Enforcement action follows PCPD finding of ineffective data privacy training
Insights
What you need to know about the Protection of Critical Infrastructures (Computer Systems) Ordinance, the cybersecurity legislation in Hong Kong (Part 6)

text

May 09 2025

The Employment (Amendment) Bill 2025 (the “Bill”) proposes amendments aimed at enhancing labour protections by reducing the threshold of working hours in respect of “continuous contract” under the Employment Ordinance (“EO”) (see below).

Current regime

Currently, an employee employed by the same employer (i) continuously for 4 weeks or more, and (ii) having worked for 18 hours or more per week in every one of those 4 weeks, is regarded as being under a “continuous contract” (section 3 and First Schedule of the EO).  This is often referred to as the “4-18 requirement”.

All employees covered by the EO irrespective of their work hours are entitled to basic EO protections.  These basic protections include:

However, employees under a continuous contract are also entitled to additional statutory benefits and protections under the EO.  They include:

(Collectively, “Statutory Benefits”).

As such, under the existing provisions of the EO, any employees who work less than the 18-hour weekly requirement within any week of the given 4 weeks will not be entitled to Statutory Benefits.

Amendments

The Bill will relax the regime and make it easier for employees to qualify for the Statutory Benefits and protections applicable to employees who are on a “continuous contract” under the EO.

In short, the Bill seeks to:

(i) lower the weekly working hours threshold from 18 hours to 17 hours; and

(ii) provide an alternative of using the aggregate working hours of 18 hours in each of 4 consecutive weeks as the qualifying threshold, and allow an aggregate of 68 working hours or more, within a 4 week period, to qualify an employee as working under a “continuous contract”.

The new alternative will assist employees with variable hours and whose working hours occasionally fall below the weekly threshold, to qualify them for the Statutory Benefits.

Potential impact

Currently, the work arrangements for some of employees are that they work less than the “continuous contract” threshold so that they are not entitled to Statutory Benefits.  If the Bill is passed, some of these employees who are currently under the threshold may reach or exceed the newly proposed threshold.  

Employers should take care and take steps to:

(1) adjust contractual arrangements and working practices to reflect any such change and avoid the risk of employee’s obtaining more statutory entitlement than was previously the case and more than the employer may be anticipating or aware of and/or

(2) make sure they monitor employees working hours properly to ensure they meet their additional legal obligations.

Should an employer fail to grant such Statutory Benefits, it may lead to civil claims and criminal prosecution.

Although the Bill has not been passed yet (where the Labour Department currently expects implementation in October 2025), employers should stay alert to any changes in the law and ensure that they comply with their statutory obligations under the EO. 

A copy of the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2025 is available here.

 

Russell Bennett and Mark Chiu

 

For more information on employment matters, please contact:

Russell Bennett
Partner | Email

Mark Chiu
Consultant | Email

 

Disclaimer: This publication is general in nature and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters dealt with in this publication.

Featured Articles

Insights
What Is the Right Measure of Compensation in Hong Kong Discrimination Claims?
Insights
News update: Finfluencers on the SFC regulatory radar
Insights
News update: Secondary Trading of Tokenised Authorised Investment Products Permitted in Hong Kong
Insights
News update: Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner claws back privacy protection from agentic AI tools
Insights
Enforcement action follows PCPD finding of ineffective data privacy training
Insights
What you need to know about the Protection of Critical Infrastructures (Computer Systems) Ordinance, the cybersecurity legislation in Hong Kong (Part 6)

text

Mar 11 2025

In January, the media noted social media posts about a female employee from a Korean chain restaurant who complained about an alleged sexual harassment by her branch manager and co-workers. This was said to involve nicknames and comments of a sexual nature about her physical appearance. Screenshots of the alleged harassment in the work chatgroups were posted online and reported.

This eventually caught the attention of the Hong Kong Equal Opportunities Commission (“EOC”) who soon expressed concern over the incident and issued a press release in response to media enquiries. No further update about the incident appears to be publicly available since then.

In this article, we take this opportunity to revisit the key provisions and principles of anti-sexual harassment law in Hong Kong, particularly in a workplace setting.

Anti-Sexual Harassment Law

Section 23(3) of the Sexual Discrimination Ordinance (“SDO”) provides that:-

“It is unlawful for a person who is employed by another person at an establishment in Hong Kong to harass a woman who is seeking to be, or who is, employed by that second-mentioned person.”

And under section 2(5) of the Ordinance, a person sexually harasses a woman if-

“(a) the person-

(i) makes an unwelcome sexual advance, or an unwelcome request for sexual favours, to her; or

(ii) engages in unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to her,

in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would anticipate the other person being offended, humiliated, or intimidated; or

(b) the person, alone or together with others, engages in conduct of a sexual nature that creates a hostile and intimidating environment for her.”

The courts will apply a 2 step test by which it will consider:-

(1) a subjective test from the point of view of the victim as to whether such conduct was “unwelcomed”; and

(2) an objective test as to whether it should have been anticipated by the perpetrator that the victim would have been offended, humiliated or intimidated.

Employer’s vicarious liability

Employers, regardless of their knowledge on the harassment, can also be vicariously liable for any unlawful sexual harassment acts by its employees. Section 46(1) of SDO provides that:-

“Anything done by a person in the course of his employment shall be treated for the purposes of this Ordinance as done by his employer as well as by him, whether or not it was done with the employer’s knowledge or approval.”

However, there is a defence against the vicarious liability under section 46(3) if an employer can show that it has taken “reasonably practicable” steps to prevent the employee from sexually harassing a fellow employee in the course of their employment.

Whether the chain restaurant mentioned in the social media post can successfully defend against any potential sexual harassment claim arising from this incident will depend on the specific circumstances and policies in place.

Points to note for employers

Some of the steps that employers can take to help prevent and reduce the risk of sexual harassment occurring and also minimise the risk of vicarious liability, include:-

  • formulating clear and detailed equal opportunity policy covering anti-discrimination and anti-harassment measures (including but not limited to equal opportunity statement, explanation of the relevant laws and details of grievance procedure);
  • monitoring implementation of the policy and updating it as necessary;
  • conducting training and issue reminders to their employees regularly And
  • making sure the policy is implemented, applied and enforced properly if prohibited acts are seen or reported.
  • making sure the policy is applied properly in cases where there is a report of sexual harassment

Please also see our article setting out practical steps which the employers can take to tackle sexual harassment here.

Russell Bennett and Mark Chiu

For more information on employment matters, please contact:

Russell Bennett

Partner | Email

Mark Chiu

Consultant | Email

Disclaimer: This publication is general in nature and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters dealt with in this publication.

Featured Articles

Insights
What Is the Right Measure of Compensation in Hong Kong Discrimination Claims?
Insights
News update: Finfluencers on the SFC regulatory radar
Insights
News update: Secondary Trading of Tokenised Authorised Investment Products Permitted in Hong Kong
Insights
News update: Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner claws back privacy protection from agentic AI tools
Insights
Enforcement action follows PCPD finding of ineffective data privacy training
Insights
What you need to know about the Protection of Critical Infrastructures (Computer Systems) Ordinance, the cybersecurity legislation in Hong Kong (Part 6)