Zhang Rong 對 譚新鳳及另四人

On 21 September 2026, Deputy District Judge Wu Man Sang handed down judgment in DCEC 494/2024, Zhang Rong v Tam San Fung & Ors, finding the first respondent Tam San Fung liable under the Employees Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282) for a workplace fall on 19 July 2022. Mr Cheng Chung Ping, instructed by Li & Tang Solicitors, acted for the successful applicant.

The applicant Zhang Rong fell from an A-frame aluminium ladder while installing insulation panels on the roof of a tin-sheet hut (52B) at Lei Uk San Tsuen, Ta Ku Ling, sustaining serious right leg injuries requiring 94 days of hospitalisation. Zhang claimed he was employed by Tam and her company Ching Ying Engineering Development Services Limited ("Elite"), or alternatively by the hut's owner Ho Kam Wa or by Yu Cho Lam, the worker who had recruited him. Tam, Elite and Ho denied the employment relationship, contending that Yu was an independent contractor who had quoted HK$18,000 for the four-day roof repair job.

The court applied the multi-factor "overall impression" test from Poon Chau Nam v Yiu Siu Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 156, together with the Court of Final Appeal's confirmation that casual workers fall within the ECO's definition of "employee" even absent any mutual obligation to provide or accept work (§32). The court accepted Zhang and Yu as credible witnesses, finding their accounts consistent with each other and supported by a contemporaneous WhatsApp message to Tam addressing her as "老闆娘" (boss lady) (§123). Tam and Ho's evidence was rejected on multiple grounds: internal contradictions about when a shipping container was placed at the site, shifting accounts of who helped move goods from the Fo Tan warehouse, implausible explanations for delaying the roof repair for five years after retirement, and the implausibility of paying a contractor HK$2,000 extra for one extra day's work (§124-125).

The court held that: (1) Tam had approached Yu to organise the roof repair so she could store Elite's goods in 52B after vacating her Fo Tan warehouse; (2) Tam supervised the work, provided tools, and paid wages through Yu; (3) the s.2(1)(b) casual employment exception was not pleaded and in any event did not apply because the work was for Tam's trade or business; and (4) Zhang was injured in the course of employment.

Tam was ordered to pay HK$533,638.08 in compensation plus interest, with claims against Elite, Ho and Yu dismissed.

For practitioners: when defending ECO claims, plead the s.2(1)(b) casual employment exception expressly in the defence, or it is lost. Where a property owner claims to have engaged an independent contractor, expect close scrutiny of who actually directed the work, who supplied tools, and how payments were structured. A lump-sum payment to a "contractor" that exceeds the agreed quote by a small amount for one extra day will be treated as daily-rate employment, not a contract for services.