- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Criminal Law and Finance and Banking topic(s)
- in Asia
Introduction
When an employee sustains injuries during the course of employment and claims compensation from the employer, factual disputes about alleged workplace policies and the circumstances of the accident play a critical role in the outcome. In a recent District Court case, Yeung Walde Bombongan v Highwood International Limited [2025] HKDC 1929, the Court clarified how oral policies and disputed evidence affect employer liability in employees' compensation claims.
Background
Parties
The Applicant, Ms Yeung Walde Bombongan (the "Employee"), had been employed since 2009 at restaurants operated by Highwood International Limited.
The Respondent, Highwood International Limited (the "Employer"), owns restaurants including CENA ("the Restaurant") where the accident occurred.
Incident
On 16 July 2022, while serving a table at the Restaurant, the Employee was bitten on the left hand by a customer's dog and sustained multiple wounds. She required hospitalization until 21 July 2022, attended 22 outpatient treatment sessions, and was on certified sick leave for 635 days.
The parties' positions
The Employee argued that she was performing her normal duties when bitten, and was never informed of any policy by the Employer prohibiting physical contact with pets at the Restaurant. She also denied the allegation that she was playing with the dog at the material time.
On the other hand, the Employer claimed that there was a strict oral policy prohibiting all employees from physically contacting any pets during work hours due to hygiene and safety concerns (the "Policy"). According to the Employer, this was a long-standing policy communicated at weekly briefings as reminders. The Employer further alleged that the Employee played with the dog in breach of the Policy.
Key issues
The court considered the following issues:
1. Was there a binding Policy, and was it properly communicated to the Employee?
2. If so, did the Employee breach the Policy by her conduct at the time of the accident?
3. If such a breach occurred, would it affect the Employee's entitlement to compensation under the Employees Compensation Ordinance (Chapter 282 of the Laws of Hong Kong) (the "ECO")?
4. How should the quantum of compensation be assessed under the ECO?
Analysis
Evidentiary weakness
The court examined the credibility and sufficiency of the Employer's evidence. The Policy was not documented, and while it was referenced in witness statements, those witnesses (who were alleged to have communicated the Policy) did not attend trial to give evidence in court. Therefore, their witness statements were disregarded. The Employer's case was critically undermined by a lack of evidence. The Court relied solely on the Employee's oral testimony, which was unchallenged and consistent.
No policy, no misconduct
The Court accepted the Employee's version of events, that is, she had not been told of any policy against pet contact , nor had she played with the dog. Moreover, the Employer permitted pets in the Restaurant. Accordingly, there was no breach of any enforceable policy and no basis for finding any contributory fault or limiting compensation.
Serious and wilful misconduct
Section 5(3) of the ECO stipulates that where an employee's injury is attributable to his or her "serious and wilful misconduct," or where injury by accident is deliberately aggravated by the employee, any claimed compensation shall be disallowed, unless the injury results in death or serious incapacity.
In the present case, even if a policy did exist, the Court held that being bitten by a customer's pet, even during friendly interaction, would rarely constitute "serious and wilful misconduct" within the meaning of Section 5(3) of the ECO. The Court clarified that "wilful" means deliberate conduct, not merely a thoughtless act, and "serious" refers to the nature of misconduct, not the actual consequences (Johnson v Marshall Sons & Co Ltd [1906] AC 409). The conduct alleged by the Employer, without further evidence, did not meet this high threshold.
Outcome
The Court held that the Employee's injuries arose in the course of employment and the Employer was liable for compensation . The Employee was awarded HK$277,339.03, comprising permanent partial incapacity , sick leave, and medical expenses. The Employer was also ordered to pay the Employee's costs of the action.
Takeaway
This case illustrates the importance for employers to clearly document and communicate workplace policies, and the need for parties in general to present corroborative evidence. Obtaining and preserving proper documentation is essential for both employers and employees in personal injury claims. As always, if in doubt, it is advisable to seek legal advice.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
