He never showed up in court, so his ex-employee's wage claim stood unchallenged
A Hong Kong hotpot operator who ignored the case must pay a chef HK$184,903, Deputy District Judge Walker Sham ruled on 7 August 2026.
The District Court awarded the sum in an employee's compensation claim brought under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance after the restaurant operator failed to respond to the proceedings at any stage. Interlocutory judgment on liability had already been entered against the respondent on 17 April 2026, leaving the court to assess only the value of the claim.
The applicant, a chef at the restaurant in Kwun Tong, Kowloon, was instructed to use a chopper to peel garlic on 11 May 2024 and accidentally cut his left index finger. Medical reports tendered to the court described a superficial laceration with some tissue loss near the nail, a small undisplaced crack fracture at the fingertip, and lingering weakness that resolved by 30 August 2024, when the wound healed with a full range of motion. A Form 9 assessment dated 23 July 2025 put his loss of earning capacity at 1.5 percent, a figure that went unappealed.
Because the respondent never appeared, the applicant's account of his own pay went untested. He told the court he earned HK$25,000 a month in cash, with no payslips or contract to back it up, and that he could not recall exactly when he started the job. Judge Sham accepted the figure regardless, noting there was no evidence to the contrary and that, in his words, "the sum seems reasonable for a chef in a restaurant."
That acceptance shaped the largest part of the award. Applying the statutory multiplier for a worker who was 64 years old at the time of the accident, the court calculated compensation for permanent loss of earning capacity under section 9 of the ordinance at HK$18,000.
The bigger figure came under section 10, covering periodical payments for temporary incapacity. The applicant had been certified fit for 320 days of sick leave, running from the date of the accident to 26 March 2025, and initially claimed for the full period. That claim narrowed once he took the stand: he confirmed under questioning that he had in fact started working for another employer as a head chef at an Indian restaurant from mid-January 2025. Judge Sham was explicit: "I would only allow the award under this head up to mid-January 2025," cutting the section 10 payment to HK$166,666. A further HK$237 was allowed in full under section 10A for medical expenses.
The total, HK$184,903, carries interest at half the judgment rate running from the date of the accident to the date of judgment. Judge Sham also made an order nisi granting the applicant costs of the assessment, including any reserved costs, with a certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed, with the applicant's own costs taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.
The wage figure stood because, as the judge noted, there was no evidence to the contrary. The sick leave payment stopped in mid-January 2025 because the applicant himself testified that he had returned to full-time work as a head chef elsewhere by then.
