Chan Yuk Ping v. Ngan Cho Lin and Huang Jian (in Partnership Trading As Forest Hill Co) and Another

On 4 August 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Chan Yuk Ping v Ngan Cho Lin & Huang Jian (trading as Forest Hill Company) and Forest Hill Industries Ltd, CACV 33/2024, dismissing the Respondents' appeal against the District Court's award of employees' compensation to the Applicant. Mr Steven Lau, instructed by LIMS, acted for the successful Applicant.

The dispute concerned a workplace injury on 26 December 2018, when the Applicant's right foot was rolled over by a forklift truck at a workshop in Tit Hang Village, Sheung Shui. The Applicant claimed joint employment by both Respondents, a partnership (R1) and a limited company (R2), as a labourer at a daily wage of HK$600 from 19 August 2018. The Respondents denied any employment relationship at the time.

After a five-day trial, Deputy District Judge CK Siu found for the Applicant, awarding HK$161,233 under ss.9, 10 and 10A of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap 282), with interest and 90% of costs (§1). The Respondents appealed on seven grounds, challenging the trial judge's findings on the time card, burden of proof, R2's alleged dormancy, the compensation payments, the cause and location of the accident, and joint employment.

The Court of Appeal (Chu VP, Lam and Anthony Chan JJA) dismissed the appeal. Anthony Chan JA held that:

(1) An appellate court can only interfere with findings of fact where the primary judge fell into palpable error, such as where the finding was unsupported by evidence, based on a misunderstanding, or one no reasonable judge could reach (§12).

(2) The 22 paragraphs of grounds amounted to impermissible re-argument of trial evidence, which has no place on appeal (§13).

(3) The trial judge did not reverse the burden of proof; he was entitled to note the absence of documentary evidence supporting the Respondents' assertion that the workshop had been lent to third parties (§17).

(4) The time card's provenance was adequately established through the evidence of Chan and Cheng, both accepted as credible witnesses (§21-22).

(5) The financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2017 did not establish R2's dormancy at the time of the December 2018 accident, given the going concern basis and the absence of any Notification of Cessation of Business (§25-26).

(6) The trial judge properly analysed the inconsistencies in the medical records and gave adequate reasons for accepting Chan's account of the accident's cause (§29).

Costs followed the event, borne by the Respondents.

Why it matters

Practitioners should expect the Court of Appeal to take a strict line on factual appeals. Re-arguing trial evidence or framing disagreements with the trial judge as "palpable error" will not succeed. Where documentary evidence is challenged, parties must address provenance concretely rather than rely on bare assertions of unreliability.