He deleted the WhatsApp evidence, made a false statement, then cried foul
A probationary Hong Kong firefighter who helped run a colleague's fraudulent investment scheme has failed to overturn his dismissal.
The High Court refused the firefighter leave to apply for judicial review on October 14, 2026, finding his termination was a private employment matter - not the kind of government decision the courts will second-guess through judicial review. Even if it were, the court said, his case had no arguable merit on any ground.
The firefighter had been employed by the Fire Services Department on probationary terms since January 2021. From February 2022, he invested money in a scheme operated by a former senior fireman. He did not stop at investing his own money. According to the court's findings, he introduced the scheme to family, friends and colleagues, and some of these new investors transferred funds to the operator through the firefighter's personal bank accounts. Between March and September 2022, he helped distribute "interest" payments to investors on the operator's instructions.
Things unravelled in July 2022. The operator told the firefighter the ICAC - Hong Kong's anti-corruption agency - was investigating him, and that the firefighter should delete all WhatsApp messages between them. The firefighter agreed. According to his own account, those messages included details about the scheme and instructions on receiving funds and distributing interest to investors.
The firefighter later reported the matter himself in November 2022, saying he might have been scammed. But by then, the trail was already cold.
The Fire Services Department launched an internal investigation in mid-2023. The station commander took three written statements from the firefighter and issued a report in January 2024. It found the firefighter fell below the "acceptable and reasonable standard of integrity" required of a fireman. Three findings drove that conclusion: the firefighter was actively involved in running the scheme by recruiting investors, collecting funds and distributing interest; he agreed to delete WhatsApp messages that would have been vital to police investigations; and he made a false statement in his September 2023 written statement, attempting to downplay his involvement.
The department moved to end his probation under Civil Service Regulation 186, which allows termination for "general unsuitability of personal characteristics." A letter of intent was issued in February 2024, and the firefighter was suspended from duties the same day.
What followed was a process the court found hard to fault. The department disclosed the investigation report and supporting evidence at the firefighter's request. It granted four time extensions - pushing the deadline for written representations from late March to late May 2024. The firefighter engaged solicitors and submitted his response. The Public Service Commission gave its support in August 2024, and the department's director approved the termination on August 27, 2024. The firefighter was paid one month's salary in lieu of notice, as his contract provided.
He challenged the decision on four grounds: breach of natural justice (essentially, that the process was unfair), unreasonableness, wrongful exercise of discretion, and reliance on mistaken evidence.
The court did not get far before hitting a threshold problem. Employment by a public body does not by itself turn a workplace decision into a public law matter. The termination was a decision about the firefighter's "temperament, characteristics and performance of duties" as a probationer - a private employment matter, full stop. Judicial review was the wrong vehicle.
The court addressed the merits anyway. The natural justice argument fell flat. The firefighter complained he received no prior warnings, no oral hearing and no chance to explain. The court found this factually incorrect - he had the letter of intent, all relevant documents, four time extensions, and legal representation for his written response. There is no absolute right to an oral hearing, and the court noted his written representations were "in substance, similar" to the arguments he ran in the judicial review itself. An oral hearing would not arguably have changed the outcome.
The firefighter also suggested the investigation was biased because two colleagues involved in the scheme were not investigated. The court said the question was whether the department acted fairly towards him - not whether others received identical treatment. His claim that the station commander had discussed the "pros and cons of resignation" with him before the decision, suggesting a predetermined outcome, was dismissed as straightforward advice to a probationer whose investigation had been running for months.
The remaining grounds fared no better. The court found the termination "well within what would be considered reasonable," supported by the firefighter's high level of involvement, his consent to deleting messaging records, and his "varying, inconsistent accounts" to the department and police. The firefighter argued he was himself a victim of the scheme - and the court accepted the department knew that. But being a victim did not erase his active participation in running it.
No costs order was made against the firefighter, despite the government's request.
For HR teams managing probationary employees, the case shows that a well-documented termination process - disclosure, time extensions, the right to legal representation - can withstand challenge even when the employee disputes every finding.
