Delivery riders, the 'self-employed' and casual workers: are you an employee under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance?

It is not what the paper calls you — "self-employed", "supplier" — but the "overall impression" of the whole relationship: the Court of Final Appeal in [2007] HKCFA 19 called it "a nuanced and not a mechanical approach", and s.31(1) makes an agreement void in so far as it purports to remove or reduce the employer's liability to pay compensation (save that under s.31(2)–(3), where a person is specially liable to meet with an accident or to sustain injury by reason of old age or serious physical defect or infirmity, the Commissioner may authorise a written agreement reducing or giving up that person's compensation for accidents caused or contributed to by that condition, which is ineffective unless the Commissioner certifies it fair and reasonable). Under that one test a platform rider who could reject orders, go offline and send a substitute was held not to be an employee ([2024] HKDC 1932), and a $1,500-a-day plasterer in a private householder's flat was held to be one ([2025] HKDC 1336); in another case a rider on a written employment contract, whose employee status was not in dispute, recovered damages as an employee ([2025] HKCFI 4030). Cash pay with no payslip can still be proved under s.11 and the cases; but a worker who cannot show who employed him can lose however serious the injury ([2024] HKDC 1827).

At a glance

The s.2(1) definition of "employee" and the three proviso exclusions are set out in full in Employees' Compensation for Work Injuries in Hong Kong under "Who counts as an employee?" and are not repeated here. This article is about what the courts actually do when you are not obviously in one of those groups but the boss says you are not an employee.

The Court of Final Appeal's test: overall impression, not a checklist

The applicant in [2007] HKCFA 19 was an air-conditioning tradesman paid $550 a day "on a casual as required basis" (¶7(e)), free to work for others, paying MPF as "self-employed". The lower courts held he was not an employee; the Court of Final Appeal unanimously reversed. The question at ¶17 is: "Is the person who has engaged himself to perform these services performing them as a person in business on his own account?" — the factors include control, whose equipment, whether he hires helpers, financial risk, responsibility for investment and management, and the chance to profit from sound management. Paragraph 18 says how they are used:

"The modern approach to the question whether one person is another's employee is therefore to examine all the features of their relationship against the background of the indicia developed in the abovementioned case-law with a view to deciding whether, as a matter of overall impression, the relationship is one of employment, bearing in mind the purpose for which the question is asked. It involves a nuanced and not a mechanical approach …"

A casual worker needs no standing obligation to take work. Paragraph 45 (see also ¶37): "the absence of a mutual obligation to supply and to take up work, while fatal to the existence of an umbrella contract, is irrelevant to the existence of a contract of employment arising out of a specific engagement". Paragraph 28 explains proviso (b): casual employment is still within "employee" provided it is "for the purposes of the employer's trade or business".

The "self-employed" label and MPF status do not change the employer's liability. Paragraph 57: "if there is objectively an employer-employee relationship, the compulsory statutory duty which the employer bears cannot be overridden by the express stipulation of the parties"; ¶60: self-employed MPF status "does not change the picture concerning the respondent's liability under the ECO". Section 31(1), to which ¶56 points, reads:

"Any contract or agreement whether made before or after the commencement of this Ordinance, whereby an employee relinquishes any right to compensation from an employer for personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, shall, subject to subsection (2), be null and void in so far as it purports to remove or reduce the liability of any person to pay compensation under the provisions of this Ordinance."

What is void is the agreement "in so far as it purports to remove or reduce" the liability, not the whole contract.

This site's reading: at ¶53 the court found the control test "of little relevance" for a skilled tradesman, but the other indicia "all point clearly to an employer-employee relationship entered into for each specific engagement" — the business was the boss's, the boss chose the jobs and paid a day rate, the worker bore no profit-or-loss risk, hired no helpers, and the van and heavy equipment were the boss's. In every case below the court asks whose business it was and who carried the risk, not what the worker was called.

Two delivery-rider cases side by side: why they do not conflict

[2024] HKDC 1932 (lost). A motorcycle rider, on his application, collided with a light goods vehicle and then a taxi while collecting an order (¶2). He had signed a "Supplier Agreement", used his own motorcycle and phone, could reject orders, go offline, choose routes, work for competitors and send a substitute, and had already received the $100,000 maximum under the platform's voluntary insurance. The court struck out his application with costs (a strike-out application, without a trial; the platform was represented, the rider was unrepresented and appeared in person). Paragraph 54: the entitlement to delegate deliveries "is plainly a factor against any employment relationship"; ¶73: his argument that he is an employee "is unsustainable". Paragraph 76 gave an independent second ground: "the Applicant is estopped by convention. The pursuit of the claim is to vex the Respondent into making further compensation notwithstanding that the Applicant has already received payment under the Voluntary Policy."

[2025] HKCFI 4030 (won). A rider for a different platform accepted his last order 16 minutes before Typhoon Signal No. 8 was hoisted and completed it after the signal was up (¶10, ¶19, ¶21); riding home, he was, on his account, blown off his motorcycle, and he suffered an open fracture of the kneecap (¶10, ¶73). Paragraph 3 records that he was "in the employ of" the defendant, and ¶44 refers to the employment contract he signed in 2018 — employee status was not in dispute and the judgment does not analyse the test; he too decided which orders to accept and his routes (¶5–6). The employer was 80% liable; the rider bore 20% contributory negligence (¶65–71). The ¶139 table: pain, suffering and loss of amenities $500,000; pre-trial loss of earnings $827,035; future loss of earnings $1,360,553; special damages $20,000; total $2,707,588; less 20% ($541,518) = $2,166,070; less employees' compensation received $817,861 = net $1,348,209 (¶140). Fully contested.

This site's reading: the judgments do not conflict because they never asked the same question. The first asked "is this rider an employee?" and answered from how the platform agreement actually worked; the second never asked, because the contract said employee. Together they say the answer turns on the actual arrangement between rider and platform, not on the occupation. Neither supports "all platform riders are covered" or "none are".

The "self-employed" paper, the lump-sum contract, "the job was contracted out": three wins and a loss

A signed "contractor" declaration — [2024] HKDC 1311. A truck driver's foot was trapped by a conveyor belt at the airport cargo terminal; the sole-proprietor employer relied on a contracting declaration signed when collecting pay. The contract itself required at least nine hours a day, seven days a week, a uniform, no sub-delegation, and notice two hours before his shift (「當值」, on duty) whether he would work under a black rainstorm or Typhoon No. 8. Paragraph 56: "the Declaration only contains the terms relating to those of a contractor ... it seems to me more likely than not that the purported choice in the Declaration was a sham". Counsel went through the contract terms at ¶38, including ¶38(4): "The use of the words '當值' shows that the respondent treated the applicant as an employee." At ¶41 the court accepted that the contract contained a number of terms typical (or at least indicative) of employment. Award $208,803.10 (contested).

A householder hiring you by the day for his own flat — [2025] HKDC 1336. A plasterer on $1,500 a day in cash was injured in the respondent's own flat; he said the job had been let to her for a $30,000 lump sum. Her pocket diary recorded each day, rate and cash payment, and he had himself written 「開工銀全收」 ("work wages all received") in it. Paragraph 26: the diary is "contemporaneous evidence which ... bears all the hallmarks of a daily paid casual worker engaged to work by different employers"; ¶31: there is no rule that an employer must "have certain experience or qualification in order to be able to exercise control"; ¶54: she was "an employee under the arrangements, supervision and control of R". Award $355,215 (contested). The judgment does not deal with the s.2(1)(b) proviso (casual employment otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business, which does not exclude a person engaged or paid through a club for a game or recreation, or a part-time domestic helper); the sole issue on liability was whether she was an employee (¶2), and the court noted that, on the respondent's own evidence, he had three properties for rental income on which he had undertaken repairs and renovation works, however minor, over the years (¶33).

Injured on day four, five respondents, nobody admits being the boss — [2026] HKDC 1723 (Chinese judgment). A construction odd-job worker on $1,800 a day was injured on the fourth day of a re-roofing job. A retired woman (sole director of a dormant engineering company) said the job had been contracted out for a lump sum; the acquaintance who recruited him said both were her day-rate workers. He traced her through a van's number plate. She was held the employer; the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board, joined as fifth respondent, contested. Paragraph 128, in summary: a respondent who wants to rely on s.2(1)(b) must plead and assert it in the Answer; and even if considered, the first respondent wholly owned and controlled the company and the roof works were part of her business, so s.2(1)(b) did not apply. Award $533,638.08 (¶140).

Cannot prove who the boss was — [2024] HKDC 1827 (lost). The applicant said a friend paid him $500 a day to stand in as a garbage-truck attendant; he fell alighting and lost the sight of one eye. The registered owner never appeared; the Board took over the defence. Paragraph 19: "there is still no evidence to support the Applicant's contention that R1 was his employer. He confirmed that he had never met R1 and did not know who was employing him …". Dismissed. Paragraph 21: "the adverse inference principle has no application to a case where the defendant has failed to attend trial. The relevant question for the court is simply whether the plaintiff has discharged his burden …".

This site's reading (the four together): three bosses, three stories, each lost to the same thing — the actual arrangement: the contract's own 「當值」, a handwritten diary, who directed the work. The third adds a procedural point: proviso (b) is a defence the employer must plead. The fourth is the reverse: an absent employer only removes the contest over the figure; it does not supply the boss's identity. The Ordinance itself helps twice: s.3(1) deems the person who lends an employee "temporarily lent or let on hire to another person" to "continue to be the employer of the employee whilst he is working for that other person"; and s.24(1) applies where any person, "in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business", contracts with a sub-contractor for the execution of the whole or any part of any work he has undertaken: that principal contractor is liable to pay any employee employed by that sub-contractor or by any other sub-contractor in the execution of the work any compensation "which the principal contractor would have been liable to pay if that employee had been immediately employed by him". The rule is not limited to construction, although compensation calculated by reference to earnings is still calculated on the earnings from the immediate employer. The employee may ask the sub-contractor in writing for the principal contractor's name and address, which must be supplied within 7 days (s.24(3)–(4); failure without reasonable excuse is an offence with a level-5 fine, $50,000, s.24(5)). Before claiming against the principal contractor under s.24, the employee must serve a written notice on it (s.24(6)).

No payslip, cash pay: proving wages (s.11)

Every head of compensation is a multiple of "monthly earnings". Section 11(1) gives two computations, "whichever calculation is more favourable to the employee": (a) the earnings "for the month immediately preceding the date of the accident", or (b) the rate per month over the previous 12 months, "but, if not, then for any lesser period during which he has been employed by the same employer". Under a month in there is no full preceding month for limb (a); limb (b)'s "lesser period" is the one that covers you. Section 11(2) adds: where "by reason of the shortness of the time ... or of the casual nature of the employment, or of the terms of employment, it is impracticable to compute the rate of remuneration", regard may be had to a comparable worker with the same employer, "or, if there is no person so employed, by a person of similar earning capacity in the same grade employed in the same class of employment and in the same district" — the route in [2026] HKDC 1723, where a market day rate of about $1,110 plus his own four days at $1,800 gave monthly earnings of $19,410 (¶133, ¶136, ¶138). With concurrent contracts of service with two or more employers, s.11(7) computes earnings "as if his earnings under all such contracts were earnings in the employment of the employer for whom he was working at the time of the accident", but only so far as the injury stops him performing the other contract. It does not apply if he was in full-time employment (not less than 40 hours during a minimum of 5 days in any week) with the employer he was injured with, nor if, at his employer's written request, he failed to give it written information about his concurrent contracts (s.11(7A), (7B)).

Asking for an earnings list is a statutory right. Section 11(8): within 14 days of a written request by the employee or the Commissioner, the employer "shall furnish in writing a list of the earnings which have been earned by that employee"; s.11(9): failure without reasonable excuse is an offence "liable to a fine at level 3" — $10,000 under Schedule 8 to the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221), s.113B.

How undocumented wages were accepted — in all three the employer did not appear (in [2024] HKDC 266 it had also been barred under unless orders from challenging the earnings), and each figure is the court's assessment with no challenge from the employer:

• [2026] HKDC 1332: a 64-year-old cooked-food-stall chef on $25,000 a month in cash. Paragraph 8: "He was paid in cash and there is no documentary proof of his monthly salary. Given that there is no contrary evidence in the present case and that the sum seems reasonable for a chef in a restaurant, I accept the Applicant's contended figure." Award $184,903. Employer absent throughout; the judgment does not say whether there was insurance.
• [2026] HKDC 1073: a 19-year-old labourer on $1,300 a day, one month in. Paragraph 13: "In a cautioned statement made to the Labour Department ... the 1st Respondent's representative admitted the aforesaid period of the Applicant's employment with the 1st Respondent as well as the daily wage." Monthly earnings $1,300 × 22 = $28,600; net $312,997.33 after a $20,000 advance. Employer took no part.
• [2024] HKDC 266: an electrician on $1,500 a day, hired orally 25 days earlier. Paragraph 17: "pursuant to section 11(1)(b) of the Ordinance that the applicant was earning $1,500 per day and would have worked 26 days …" — $39,000 a month; $462,238 less an advance of $266,760 = $195,478. Employer barred after defaulting on unless orders; assessment in its absence.

One contested Court of Appeal case. [2021] HKCA 486 concerned a worker not lawfully employable, paid in cash, with no contract, who did not know his employer's name. Paragraph 4.28: once the respondent's only case was disbelieved and the judge found that the applicant was indeed working at its warehouse, the judge was entitled to infer that the respondent was the employer, even though another person paid the applicant and gave him instructions: "It would be most strange, in the absence of other evidence, that the respondent would permit a stranger to work at its warehouse if he was not its employee." On s.10, ¶4.38: "suitable" "has nothing to do with the legality of the applicant's employment ... only describing the kind of work which can be done by him in the light of his physical condition". Appeal dismissed.

This site's reading: the three undefended cases stand for no contrary evidence plus a plausible figure, not for the proposition that the worker's word is enough; once an employer disputes the wage, the tools are the s.11(8) list, the employer's own documents (a Labour Department statement, Form 2, attendance records) and the s.11(2) market comparison. The Court of Appeal supplies the other half: where the employer's account is rejected and there is no other evidence, the fact that a company let you work on its premises can support the inference that it was the employer.

Insurance follows the real relationship: covered by the policy's terms even if never on the schedule

The worker in [2018] HKCFA 3 was a daily-rate carpenter at an interior-design company whose policy listed seven office staff only; the company had treated its carpenters as self-employed. After it was wound up the insurer denied cover. It was accepted that he was the company's employee (¶17). The Court of Final Appeal unanimously held that the policy's scope of cover, "any Employee" in the insured's immediate employ, was not confined to the posts listed in the Schedule (¶14, ¶20, ¶29), so the insurer — not the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund — must pay. Paragraph 8: "provided a policy 'in relation to an employee' is 'in force' at the time of his injury, the insurer is liable to pay whatever compensation is due to the employee under the Ordinance or otherwise, notwithstanding that as a matter of contract with the employer the insurer would have been entitled to repudiate liability for misrepresentation or breach of a term of the policy ... the risk of the insolvency of the insured is shifted from the employee to the insurer." Paragraph 25: the insurer might have had recourse against the employer under s.43(4), "But section 43(1) of the Ordinance prevents it from doing so as against [the worker]" (bracketed words replace a name). Fully contested. Section 43(1):

"Subject to this section, where in relation to an employee there is in force a policy of insurance issued for the purposes of this Part and the employer of the employee becomes liable to pay any sum under this Ordinance or independently of this Ordinance in respect of an injury to the employee arising out of and in the course of his employment, such sum shall forthwith become due and payable by the insurer, including any sum payable in respect of interest and costs, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the policy of insurance."

Section 43(1) opens "Subject to this section": s.43(2) lists situations in which the insurer is not liable — for example, where it had no sufficient notice of the proceedings to be added as a party, where the policy was cancelled before the accident, or for sums above the amount the policy covers — not quoted item by item here.

No insurance at all: s.40(1) — "no employer shall employ any employee in any employment unless there is in force in relation to such employee a policy of insurance issued by an insurer …" — and s.40(2) makes contravention an offence: on indictment a level-6 fine and 2 years' imprisonment, on summary conviction a level-6 fine and 1 year — level 6 being $100,000 under Schedule 8 to Cap. 221.

This site's reading: this section and the first are two faces of one principle. Section 31(1) stops "you are self-employed" removing the employer's liability; where the policy's terms cover you, s.43(1) stops a breach such as "he never declared you" removing the insurer's liability to you, subject to s.43(2). Always on the footing that, objectively, you were an employee.

Frequently asked questions

Related topics

• Employees' Compensation for Work Injuries in Hong Kong — the full s.2(1) definition and proviso, each head of compensation, process and time limits
• Real cases: work-injury compensation — what seven decided cases awarded
• Legal aid eligibility — several applicants above were legally aided

Sources

Statutory passages are from the in-force versions below; judgment passages are from the judgments as published on HKLII.

• Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282), ss. 2(1), 3(1) ("employer"), 11(1), (2), (7), (7A), (7B), (8), (9), 24(1), (3)–(6), 31(1), 40(1), (2), 43(1), (2), (4); version in force 14 May 2026 — https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap282
• Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221), s.113B and Schedule 8 (level 3 $10,000, level 5 $50,000, level 6 $100,000); version in force 14 May 2026 — https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap221
• Test, mutual obligation, self-employed label: [2007] HKCFA 19 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkcfa/2007/19
• Platform riders: [2024] HKDC 1932 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkdc/2024/1932; [2025] HKCFI 4030 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkcfi/2025/4030
• The "self-employed" paper and who the employer is: [2024] HKDC 1311 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkdc/2024/1311; [2025] HKDC 1336 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkdc/2025/1336; [2026] HKDC 1723 — https://www.hklii.hk/tc/cases/hkdc/2026/1723; [2024] HKDC 1827 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkdc/2024/1827
• Wages (employer absent or barred): [2026] HKDC 1332 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkdc/2026/1332; [2026] HKDC 1073 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkdc/2026/1073; [2024] HKDC 266 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkdc/2024/266
• Employer identity and s.10 (contested): [2021] HKCA 486 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkca/2021/486
• Insurance (s.43(1)): [2018] HKCFA 3 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkcfa/2018/3
• Platform-worker legislation: Chief Executive's 2026 Policy Address, para 385 — https://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/2026/en/chapter7.html; Secretary for Labour and Welfare, opening remarks, 17 April 2026 — https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202604/17/P2026041700694.htm

Judgments quoted

[2007] HKCFA 19; [2024] HKDC 1932; [2025] HKCFI 4030; [2024] HKDC 1311; [2025] HKDC 1336; [2026] HKDC 1723 (Chinese judgment; summarised in English); [2026] HKDC 1332, [2026] HKDC 1073 (employer absent), [2024] HKDC 266 (employer barred under unless orders, and absent); [2021] HKCA 486; [2024] HKDC 1827 (employer absent; defended by the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board); [2018] HKCFA 3.

About these case summaries: the summaries above were prepared by this site based on our own reading and understanding of the judgments. They are not legal advice, have no legal effect, and must not be cited as authority. Cases are identified by neutral citation only, with no party names given. Outcomes turn on the totality of each case's circumstances; everything cited here is what the cited case actually decided, never a prediction for any other case. Passages from Chinese-language judgments are given in this site's own English rendering or in the Judiciary's published English translation, marked as such.

Matters this article does not address

This article makes no statement either way on the following.

• Whether any individual reader is an "employee" under the Ordinance. This article states the Court of Final Appeal's test and what the cited judgments decided on their own facts; employee status turns on all the facts of each case, and nothing is said about any reader's situation.
• Legislation on platform workers' injury protection. The Government has said it is developing new legislation to provide statutory work-injury compensation for digital platform workers engaged in food and goods delivery, aiming to submit the legislative proposal to LegCo within 2026; as at 23 September 2026 no such legislation was in force. Its content, scope and commencement are not described. The position stated is that as at 23 September 2026.
• Whether [2024] HKDC 1932 was appealed, and with what result. Only the District Court's decision is stated.
• The damages reasoning at ¶101–135 of [2025] HKCFI 4030. Only ¶3, ¶5–6, ¶10, ¶19, ¶21, ¶44, ¶65–71, ¶73 and ¶139–140 are relied on.
• Whether the employers in [2026] HKDC 1332 and [2026] HKDC 1073 were insured. Both judgments are silent.
• The full text and operation of the three s.2(1) proviso exclusions, the s.2(2) illegal-contract discretion and the s.2(4) insurance route for resident family members. See the main guide.
• The provisions, eligibility conditions and amounts under the Employees Compensation Assistance Ordinance (Cap. 365). Only its existence is noted.
• The effect of the estoppel-by-convention ruling at ¶76 of [2024] HKDC 1932 on any other worker who has received a payment under a platform's voluntary policy. Only that case's ruling on its own facts is stated.
• What any individual reader can recover. Every award stated is the actual award in the case cited; those in [2026] HKDC 1332, [2026] HKDC 1073 and [2024] HKDC 266 are the court's assessment with no challenge from the employer (in [2024] HKDC 266 the employer had been barred under unless orders from challenging the earnings).
• Later revision of the Schedule 8 fine levels. Section 113B(3) of Cap. 221 allows amendment by regulation; the amounts stated are those in force on 14 May 2026.