Hong Kong
Hong Kong Court clarifies employer liability for psychiatric injuries under ECO (case law)
Impact date: 13 August 2025 The Hong Kong Court recently clarified an employer’s liability for psychiatric injuries under the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance (“ECO”) in Chan Man Sau v Elegantia College [2025] HKDC 1354.
The claimant, a teacher, alleged psychiatric harm caused by workplace incidents (including threatening language and shouting by colleague, student ridicule and reprimand following a missed class), and sought compensation. The Court emphasized that for ECO claims, the injury must result from an “accident,” narrowly defined as an “unusual, inappropriate, sudden, and unfortunate” event. Routine management actions such as feedback or disciplinary measures generally do not meet this threshold. The claimant bears the burden of proving a direct causal link between the psychiatric injury and a qualifying accident, supported by credible contemporaneous medical evidence. In this case, inconsistencies and lack of strong evidence led the Court to dismiss the claim, ruling that none of the incidents met the legal threshold of an “accident”.
Employer implications/action needed While routine workplace management is unlikely to create liability, employers should adopt proper practices to mitigate risk. This includes providing staff training on appropriate workplace conduct, documenting workplace interactions where feasible, and offering mental health support. Failure to implement these measures may increase exposure if behaviour is later deemed inappropriate or extreme.
Employer risk N/A
Employer’s responsibility during adverse weather (case law)
Impact date: 3 September 2025 A recent Hong Kong High Court case highlights employers’ duty of care during adverse weather.
The employee, a Foodpanda rider, was injured in a traffic accident after completing deliveries when Typhoon Signal No. 8 (“T8”) was issued. Although the employer warned riders via Telegram and stated operations would suspend once T8 was hoisted, riders were allowed to finish ongoing orders. The employment contract also implied riders agreed to continue deliveries during T8 or Black Rainstorm conditions, if he or she accepts a job after such signals were hoisted or is making delivery during such conditions.
The Court reaffirmed that employers have a non-delegable duty under common law to take reasonable care for employees’ safety during adverse weather conditions, including providing a safe system of work, effective supervision, and complying with the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance and Labor Department’s Code of Practice. Allowing deliveries during T8 was deemed an unsafe system of work, and the employer breached the Code of Practice which advises suspension of outdoor work during typhoons. The employer was eventually held 80% liable, with the employee 20% contributorily negligent, who was awarded over HK$1,000,000 in compensation.
Employer implications/action needed Employers should promptly suspend outdoor operations during severe weather, communicate risks and operational changes effectively to employees, review contracts and policies to eliminate any terms that could require work in adverse conditions, and provide comprehensive safety training to staff.
Employer risk N/A
Relaxation of the "continuous contract" requirement
Impact date: 18 January 2026 On 18 June 2025, the Legislative Council passed the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2025, revising the definition of a “continuous contract” under the Employment Ordinance. The new threshold will take effect from 18 January 2026.
Under the current definition, a continuous contract requires an employee to work at least 18 hours per week for four or more consecutive weeks. This will be replaced by two alternative tests:
- The “417 rule” - an employee is deemed to be under a continuous contract if they work not less than 17 hours per week for four or more consecutive weeks, or
- The “468 rule” - an employee is deemed to be under a continuous contract if they work 68 hours or more in total over any four-week period
Employer implications/action needed After the new threshold comes into effect, existing short term or part time employees (who fall short of the 18-hour requirement per week) may be able to fulfil the “continuous contract” requirement and be entitled to more comprehensive benefits. Employers should seek legal advice on appropriate next steps where they may be affected, in particular the legal and financial implications that this proposed amendment may have on their workforce structure and payroll obligations.
Employer risk N/A
Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD) published guidelines on the use of Generative AI in the workplace
Impact date: N/A The Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD) issued a “Checklist on Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI by Employees” (the “Guidelines”), providing practical guidance for employers in developing internal policies and guidelines on the use of Gen AI tools by employees at work for compliance with the requirements of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance.
The key considerations referred to in the Guidelines are summarized below:
Scope of permissible use
- Specify the Gen AI tools that are permitted within the company and the tasks or activities for which employees can use the Gen AI tools for
- Set out the scope of individuals to whom the policy applies (e.g. organisation-wide or department / rank / individual specific)
Protection of personal data privacy
- Provide clear instructions on the types and amounts of information that can and cannot be inputted into Gen AI tools
- Provide clear instructions on the permissible purposes for using the information generated by Gen AI tools, and whether, when and how personal data should be anonymized before further use
- Set out requirements regarding permissible storage of the output information
- Ensure that the policy aligns with the company’s other internal policies
Lawful and ethical use and prevention of bias
- Specify that employees shall not use Gen AI tools for unlawful or harmful activities
- Emphasize the need for employees to verify AI-generated output
- Alert employees on the prevention of bias and discrimination
- Provide clear instructions on when and how AI-generated output should be watermarked or labelled
Data security
- Specify permitted devices and users of Gen AI tools
- Require robust user credentials and stringent security settings for use of Gen AI tools
- Require employees to report AI incidents (e.g. data breaches, unauthorized input of personal data, abnormal output results) in accordance with the company’s AI incident response plan
Violation of the policies or guidelines
- Specify the potential consequences of employees’ violation of the policies or guidelines
Employer implications/action needed Adopting the recommendations outlined in the Guidelines represents a crucial first step for businesses seeking to establish a framework that governs the responsible use of generative AI tools in the workplace. Implementing such internal policies not only safeguards personal data but also lays the groundwork for the safe, ethical, and effective integration of AI technologies across business operations.
Employer risk N/A
Contact
© Eversheds Sutherland. All rights reserved. Eversheds Sutherland is a global provider of legal and other services operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. Eversheds Sutherland is the name and brand under which the members of Eversheds Sutherland Limited (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP and Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP) and their respective controlled, managed and affiliated firms and the members of Eversheds Sutherland (Europe) Limited (each an "Eversheds Sutherland Entity" and together the "Eversheds Sutherland Entities") provide legal or other services to clients around the world. Eversheds Sutherland Entities are constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local regulatory and legal requirements and operate in accordance with their locally registered names. The use of the name Eversheds Sutherland, is for description purposes only and does not imply that the Eversheds Sutherland Entities are in a partnership or are part of a global LLP. The responsibility for the provision of services to the client is defined in the terms of engagement between the instructed firm and the client.