Hong Kong court clarifies when ‘psychiatric trauma’ could constitute a ‘workplace injury’

In a recent judgment handed down on 13 August 2025 (Chan Man Sau v. 風采中學（教育評議會主辦）法團校董會 [2025] HKDC 135), the Hong Kong District Court considered six employees' compensation claims brought by a secondary-school teacher (Mr Chan) against his employer and revisited the issue of whether psychiatric trauma, caused by words spoken between an employer and an employee, could be considered a “personal injury by accident” under s. 5(1) of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282) (ECO). 

Mr Chan brought claims in respect of six alleged accidents, four of which arose not out of a physical accident but which he says caused him psychiatric trauma, as follows: 
Alleged Accident 1 (10 December 2018) - following a missed badminton activity, Chan secretly recorded a conversation with a colleague without her consent. He alleged he suffered psychiatric trauma because she threatened him, relying on words such as “play tricks on/harm/kill you”(the Badminton Incident). 

Alleged Accident 2 (30 October 2019) - After media reports of other proceedings, students ridiculed Chan with nicknames and comments about his absence and litigation. He alleged that this caused him considerable pressure (the Nickname Incident). 

Alleged Accident 3 (8 June 2020) - Chan failed to attend a mathematics class and remained at his desk until nearly the end, when the school officer reminded him. He alleged that both his office and mobile phones had accidentally malfunctioned and that the school's reminder system had unexpectedly failed, causing him mental stress and injury. In subsequent meetings with the principal and vice-principal, he accused the school officer of deliberately delaying notification, but the principal focused on his lateness. Chan admitted no one had threatened him or spoken inappropriately and clarified that his reference to fearing for his safety meant he sometimes harmed himself when under stress (the Phone Malfunction Incident). 

Alleged Accident 4 (10 September 2020) - When the principal and vice-principal offered assistance with a computer password problem, Chan refused. He alleged that the principal then shouted at him, causing shock, loss of dignity, and lasting fear of IT malfunctions. He left the staff room to rest and take medication (the Shouting Incident). 

Psychiatric injury claims without physical injury 

The Court, relying on and citing Yeung Yim Ngor Angela v. Po Leung Kuk No. 1 W H Cheung College [2018] HKDC 766 (Yeung), laid out the principles in determining whether psychiatric injury claims without physical injury comes within the scope of the ECO, as follows: 

• In conversations between an employer and employee, if the employer uses inappropriate wording, it may constitute an “accident,” but to satisfy the definition of “accident,” the content of the conversation must be “sudden and unfortunate.” By way of example, although suspension from duty by the employer may come as a surprise to the employee, the employer is entitled in those circumstances to suspend the employee; therefore, this does not constitute an “accident.” Even if the employee feels shocked by the suspension, the employee may have an innate personality predisposition and thus reacts so strongly to the event. Thus, being suspended or receiving a suspension letter cannot be regarded as an “accident.” 

• In deciding whether an event constitutes an “accident,” the focus is not on the suspension, dismissal or criticism itself; the key is the manner in which that suspension, dismissal or criticism is carried out or handled. Therefore, where in such cases a conversation is relied upon as the basis for an “accident,” the words uttered must be “unusual and inappropriate,” and must also be “sudden and unfortunate.” Furthermore, such words must cause the employee to suffer psychological injury. 

• In determining whether “bodily injury” was caused by an accident, the court need not rely on the assistance of a medical expert, but may instead make a determination by applying common sense. 

The court further emphasised that, in line with Yeung, when words spoken in or in connection with an incident are relied upon as the basis of an accident, the critical question is not the fact of the act itself, but whether the words were “outrageous and inappropriate,” whether the exchange was “sudden and unfortunate,” and whether such words in fact caused psychological injury. 

All four claims were dismissed but on different grounds: 

• In relation to the Badminton Incident, the court reviewed the entire exchange and accepted that the remarks were intended to reassure him she was not colluding to frame him, and that she repeatedly told him not to worry. The statements were not “outrageous and inappropriate” or “sudden and unfortunate.” Thus, the claim was dismissed. 

• in relation to the Nickname Incident, the court held that such teasing was ordinary immature behaviour in a school context, and was not “outrageous, inappropriate” or “sudden and unfortunate.” Thus, the claim was dismissed. 

• In relation to the Phone Malfunction Incident, the court accepted evidence that the phone system was functioning properly. It held that the incident and ensuing discussions were routine matters of school administration, and that his complaint concerned the correctness of the handling rather than its manner which is irrelevant. Thus, the claim was dismissed. 

• In relation to the Shouting Incident, the court examined the evidence found it more inherently probable that no shouting had occurred, since (1) no other teachers present intervened; (2) Chan, who would normally challenge the principal, did not respond at the time; (3) he took no sick leave; and (4) he only filed an accident report more than six months later despite knowing he should have reported promptly. Thus, the claim was dismissed. 

Stressful, unpleasant interactions not always ‘outrageous and inappropriate’ 

This latest case underscores that not every stressful or unpleasant workplace interaction is an “accident” under the ECO but that if certain words uttered between co-workers were “outrageous and inappropriate” or “sudden and unfortunate,” leading to psychological injury, then such psychological injury could well be within the scope of the ECO. In looking at the circumstances in which the words are uttered, the court will scrutinise the full context and manner of conversations rather than isolated words and will generally treat routine managerial steps and foreseeable workplace dynamics as non-accidental (such as putting an employee on suspension, or students teasing a teacher). However, there may well be circumstances in which words exchanged, resulting in psychological injury could amount to a “personal injury by accident” that is covered by the ECO. 

Whilst the case law has shed further light on the circumstances in which psychiatric trauma may, or may not, be treated as an accident under the ECO, the law in this area remains highly fact-sensitive and may continue to evolve. 

Richard Keady is a Partner and Jenny Zhuang is Of Counsel, both in Dentons’ Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group based in Hong Kong.