Working at Height in Hong Kong: Clip the Harness, Wear the Helmet — and What the Family Needs to Know if the Worst Happens

On a construction site, work at a height of 2 metres or more must first be protected by working platforms, guard-rails and coverings for openings — the "adequate steps" of reg 38B of the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations; a harness is the fallback and, for the contractor's reg 38H defence, counts only if "attached continuously to a suitable and secure anchorage" (reg 38H(3)), and a worker who has been given one must wear it and keep it attached to a secure anchorage whenever its use is necessary for his own or anyone else's safety (reg 38I). If a fall is fatal, the family has two separate tracks: Employees' Compensation Ordinance death compensation asks nobody who was at fault: even if the worker was not wearing the gear, the accident is still "deemed" to arise out of the employment if he was doing the employer's work (s.5(4)(b)); only where the employer proves that the injury is attributable to the worker's own "serious and wilful misconduct" (or that he deliberately aggravated it) does s.5(3) affect the claim, and even then, in a death case, the court "may award the compensation provided by this Ordinance or such part thereof as it shall think fit" (s.5(3)); a common-law negligence claim must prove fault, and the deceased's own fault is deducted as contributory negligence. A contractor's acquittal in the criminal court does not decide the family's civil claim — the civil court looks at the evidence afresh.

Quick reference: before, and after

Part one: prevention — what the worker and the contractor each have to do

Where does "2 metres" come from?

"Above 2 metres you need fall protection" is a sentence most site workers can recite. As a general fall-prevention rule, its legal source is reg 38B of the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations (Cap. 59 sub. leg. I). Paragraphs (1), (1A) and (2) read:

"(1) Subject to paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the contractor responsible for any construction site shall take adequate steps to prevent any person on the site from falling from a height of 2 metres or more. (1A) Subject to paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), any contractor who has direct control over any construction work shall take adequate steps to prevent any person on any place where the construction work is being carried out from falling from a height of 2 metres or more. … (2) For the purpose of paragraphs (1) and (1A), adequate steps (足夠的步驟) shall include the provision, use and maintenance of one or more of the following—(a) working platforms; (b) guard-rails, barriers, toe-boards and fences; (c) coverings for openings; (d) gangways and runs."

Three points. First, the duty-holder is the "contractor", at two levels: paragraph (1) binds "the contractor responsible for any construction site" — under reg 2(2)(a), the contractor undertaking construction work there or, where there is more than one, the principal contractor; paragraph (1A) binds "any contractor who has direct control over any construction work", which reaches sub-contractors. Second, "adequate steps" means hardware first — platforms, rails, coverings, gangways — not a harness. Third, reg 38B speaks only of a "construction site", defined in reg 2(1) as "a place where construction work is undertaken" together with the adjoining storage area.

Off a construction site, there is no general "2 metres" fall-prevention rule. A few equipment-specific regulations use the figure (for example, Cap. 59J reg 9(2) requires a guard-rail and toe-boards where a person may fall more than 2 metres from a crane driver's or signaller's platform), but what generally applies are two general-duty provisions. Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance (Cap. 59) s.6A(1): "It shall be the duty of every proprietor of an industrial undertaking to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of all persons employed by the proprietor at the industrial undertaking." Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance (Cap. 509) s.6(1): "Every employer must, so far as reasonably practicable, ensure the safety and health at work of all the employer's employees." Neither carries a height. The Labour Department's non-statutory Overview of Work-at-Height Safety (2nd ed., February 2023) draws the line at 2 m — para 1.1: "work-above-ground means carrying out the work at less than 2 metres above the ground … whereas work-at-height means carrying out the work at 2 metres or more above the ground" — but that is guidance, not a code of practice approved under Cap. 59 s.7A, and not law. So for a workplace that is not a construction site (warehouse racking, a signboard, a delivery round) the law draws no general 2 m line; it asks whether the duty-holder did what was "reasonably practicable". Whether a given kind of work is "construction work" under Cap. 59 s.2, so that Cap. 59I applies to it, is not addressed in this article (see the closing section).

This site's reading: "2 metres" is an easy number to remember, but as a general fall-prevention rule it has legal force only on a construction site. Elsewhere the law does not ask "was it over 2 metres" but "did the proprietor or employer ensure safety so far as reasonably practicable" — a standard with no number, and a wider reach.

Platforms and rails first; the harness is the fallback — and there has to be something to clip it to

Many people assume "a harness is enough". The regulation is not built that way. Reg 38B's primary demand is hardware; the harness appears only in reg 38H, which is a defence — a contractor charged under reg 38B(1), (1A) or 38C must "show" three things:

"(a) that in all the circumstances of the case, it was impracticable to comply with all or any of the requirements of that regulation; (b) that—(i) the contractor provided suitable and adequate safety nets and safety belts in lieu of complying with those requirements; or (ii) in all the circumstances of the case, it was impracticable to provide such safety nets and the contractor provided suitable and adequate safety belts in lieu of complying with those requirements; and (c) that all reasonably practicable steps were taken to ensure the proper use of the safety belts by the persons to whom they were provided."

And reg 38H(3) says belts are "suitable and adequate" only if they:

"(a) are attached continuously to a suitable and secure anchorage; (b) have suitable fittings therefor; and (c) are of such a design and so constructed and maintained as to prevent injury to persons using them in the event of a fall."

So for the purposes of the reg 38H defence, a harness with nothing to clip it to is not a "suitable and adequate" safety belt. The burden of proving the defence, on the balance of probabilities, is the contractor's — [2022] HKCFI 316 ¶21 records that this was not in dispute. In that case the court accepted, on the balance of probabilities, the evidence of the load-bearing capacity of the threaded rod the workers clipped to, held that it could serve as a secure anchorage point so that the reg 38H defence applied, and quashed the reg 38B conviction (¶26–28, ¶30); without that proof, "he did not clip on" is no defence.

The civil courts put it more bluntly. [2021] HKDC 1026 ¶75 (a worker fell 8.25 m through a void in the scaffold at the roof of a village house; no independent lifelines): "I agree with [counsel for the estate]'s submission that the complaint against the Deceased for failing to put on a safety harness was an empty one as no independent lifelines were provided for the harness to be secured on." (Bracketed words substituted by this site for counsel's name.) [2026] HKDC 555 (a fall of about 7.27 m from an unguarded temporary platform; harness issued, no anchorage) records at ¶32 that the defendants abandoned at closing the allegation that he failed to use the safety belt. [2022] HKCFI 2179 ¶73 (a rigger who had to step out onto an I-beam suspended some 3–4 m up to fit a chain block, with no independent lifeline or eyebolt to clip to; a chain block broke, he jumped clear, and the rebounding beam struck him as he landed: ¶21, ¶29, ¶63): having found no safe system of work, the judge held it would be "unjust to find any contributory negligence".

This site's reading: statute and judgments point the same way — the anchorage (anchor point, independent lifeline) is the thing that matters; the harness is only the strap between the worker and it. "We issued harnesses" and "there was a harness that could be used" are different statements.

The worker's own duty: if you are given a harness, wear it and clip on

The duties are not one-way. Reg 38I in full:

"Every person working on a construction site who has been provided with a safety belt shall wear it and keep it attached to a secure anchorage whenever the use of the belt is necessary for his own or any other person's safety."

A person who contravenes reg 38I "commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of $150,000" (reg 71(1)). The regulation presupposes that a belt "has been provided" and that there is "a secure anchorage" to attach to — it is the mirror of reg 38H: the contractor supplies belt and anchorage, the worker wears and clips.

This passage and the helmet passage below are the only places in this article that tell the reader to do something, because they are about physical safety: if you are given a harness, wear it, clip it to a secure anchorage, and do not unclip. Beyond reg 38I, [2025] HKDC 2171 (below) is a case where a worker unclipped from the independent lifeline, was injured, and lost his claim.

Helmets: the contractor provides and enforces, everyone entering wears one, and the chin strap is fastened

Reg 48 is written for both sides. The contractor's side (paragraph (1); paragraph (1A) makes the same provision for a contractor in direct control):

"A contractor responsible for a construction site shall—(a) provide each workman employed on the site with a suitable safety helmet; and (b) take all reasonable steps to ensure that no workman remains on the site unless he is wearing a suitable safety helmet."

Everyone's side (paragraph (2)):

"No person shall enter a construction site unless he is wearing a suitable safety helmet."

Does "wearing" include fastening the chin strap? [2023] HKCFI 3070 (a prosecution appeal by way of case stated; a Chinese-language judgment, quoted here from the Judiciary's official English translation) dealt with it. Labour Department officers had found six workers wearing helmets with the chin straps unfastened, and a magistrate held that the contractors were not in breach of reg 48(1)(b) or (1A)(b) (¶2, ¶7, ¶15). The Court of First Instance said at ¶104: "In my view, "wearing a suitable safety helmet" includes wearing it properly, otherwise it will not be able to provide protection at all", adding that since the Labour Department's 2018 guidance all workmen on construction sites are required to fasten their chin straps. It held the magistrate's reading too narrow (¶105) and answered "Yes" to the question whether the contractor must ensure that chin straps are fastened (¶106). The ruling concerns the contractor's duty under reg 48(1)(b) and (1A)(b).

Again a physical-safety point: wear the helmet on site and fasten the chin strap. Entering without one is itself an offence, punishable at level 5 (reg 71(1A)), which is $50,000 (Cap. 221 Sch 8).

Penalties on both sides

Fine levels are set by Schedule 8 to the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221) under s.113B: "Level 5 $50,000 Level 6 $100,000". The current maxima under Cap. 59I regs 68 and 71 (reg 68 and reg 71(1A) as amended by Ordinance No. 5 of 2023, which the Labour Department's page records as commencing on 28 April 2023):

The general-duty offences carry more: Cap. 59 s.6A(3) and Cap. 509 s.6(3) — "on summary conviction—to a fine of $3,000,000; or … on conviction on indictment—to a fine of $10,000,000", with imprisonment available where a proprietor contravenes s.6A "wilfully and without reasonable excuse" (Cap. 59 s.6A(4)), or where an employer fails to comply "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly" (Cap. 509 s.6(4)).

In numbers: the Labour Department's Occupational Safety and Health Statistics 2025 records 188 "fall of person from height" accidents in construction in 2025, 6 of them fatal, against 21 industrial fatalities in construction that year (figures as recorded at 31 March 2026). On those figures, 6 of 21, about 29%, of construction industrial deaths in 2025 were falls from height (a percentage the Department does not itself state).

Part two: if the worst happens — what the family needs to know

Two tracks: statutory compensation and the common-law claim are separate

The first thing a bereaved family usually hears is "the company says it wasn't our fault". For one of the two tracks that sentence is irrelevant. Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282) s.5(1):

"Subject to subsections (2) and (3), if in any employment, personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to an employee, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with this Ordinance."

The word "negligence" does not appear. This is no-fault statutory compensation. The other track — a common-law negligence claim (the dependants' claim under the Fatal Accidents Ordinance (Cap. 22) and the estate's claim) — requires proof of fault by the employer or another duty-holder. Both can be pursued, but not twice over: the proviso to s.26(1) requires damages awarded against the employer to "be reduced by the value … of any compensation which has been paid or is payable under the provisions of this Ordinance". The machinery of each track, the layered limitation periods and the set-off are covered in this site's employees' compensation guide under "Fatal cases" and "Relationship with common-law negligence claims"; this article does not repeat them and covers only what is specific to a fall from height.

One case shows the two tracks really are separate. [2024] HKDC 975: a casual bamboo scaffolder fell from a truss-out scaffold on an external wall and died. The scaffolding proprietor who had brought him to the job was prosecuted by the Labour Department on three summonses under regs 38B(1A), 38AA(2) and 38E(2)(b), and was acquitted of all three after trial (¶19–21). The same proprietor was held by the District Court to be the employer. In an assessment made in the absence of both the proprietor and the principal contractor (the principal contractor never filed an answer, and liability had been entered against it by interlocutory judgment; only the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board appeared, contesting quantum), the court ordered the proprietor, with the principal contractor (s.24), to pay the family death compensation of $1,398,114.40 plus funeral expenses of $68,858, a total of $1,466,972.40 (¶4, ¶73). The judgment records the acquittal as history only; liability rested on the employment relationship and on witness declarations taken by the Labour Department. The Ordinance never asked whether he was at fault.

The death figures: current amounts, and who can receive them

Section 6(1) fixes the multiplier by the worker's age at the accident:

"(a) in the case of an employee under 40 years of age at the time of the accident, a lump sum equal to 84 months' earnings or 84 times the amount specified in the second column of the Sixth Schedule shown opposite section 6(1)(a) specified in the first column of that Schedule, whichever is the less; (b) in the case of an employee of or over 40 years of age but under 56 years of age at the time of the accident, a lump sum equal to 60 months' earnings or 60 times the amount … whichever is the less; (c) in the case of an employee of or over 56 years of age at the time of the accident, a lump sum equal to 36 months' earnings or 36 times the amount … whichever is the less."

The Sixth Schedule amounts now in force: $38,670 against s.6(1)(a)–(c) (the monthly-earnings ceiling); $514,510 against s.6(2) ("The amount of compensation payable under subsection (1) shall in no case be less than" that sum); $98,950 against s.6(5) ("reimbursement of the reasonable expenses of the funeral of the deceased employee and the reasonable expenses of medical attendance … shall be paid by the employer to any person who has paid the expenses", capped at that total). These were set by L.N. 43 of 2025 and, per the Labour Department's notice, apply to accidents on or after 17 April 2025; for accidents from 13 April 2023 to 16 April 2025 the figures were $36,550, $486,300 and $94,690 (per the Department's Concise Guide). The Sixth Schedule is amended by resolution of the Legislative Council (s.48A(i)), so the figures will move again. On that basis the ceiling for a worker under 40 is 84 × $38,670 = $3,248,280 (a figure the statute does not state as such).

Section 6(3) also deducts any compensation already paid under s.7 or s.9 for the same accident.

Who is a "member of the family"? The definition in s.3(1):

"member of the family (家庭成員), in relation to an employee, means a person who has any of the following relationships in respect of the employee, whether by blood or an adoption specified in subsection (2)—(a) a spouse or cohabitee; (b) a child; (c) a parent or grandparent; or (d) a grandson, granddaughter, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, and child of a brother or sister of the whole blood, any of whom has been living with the employee as a member of the same household and has been so living for the period of 24 months immediately preceding the accident concerned"

Two tiers: the relatives in (a) to (c) need no cohabitation; those in (d) must have been "living with the employee as a member of the same household … for the period of 24 months immediately preceding the accident". A "cohabitee" is a person who at the time of the accident "was living with the employee as the employee's wife or husband" (same section). Compensation is payable "only to eligible members of the family and apportioned in the manner set out in the Seventh Schedule" (s.6A(1)); the Schedule's percentages are not reproduced here. [2024] HKDC 975 applied the combination of 45% to the spouse, 45% to the child and 10% to the parents.

Who pays on a site? Section 24(1): a principal contractor that, in the course of or for the purposes of its trade or business, sub-contracts work is liable to pay an employee of a sub-contractor the compensation "which the principal contractor would have been liable to pay if that employee had been immediately employed by him" (calculated on the earnings under the immediate employer); the employee may issue a written request to the sub-contractor for the principal contractor's name and address, to be supplied within 7 days (s.24(3), (4)); a written notice must be served on the principal contractor before any claim against it (s.24(6)).

Two time lines: 6 months and 24 months

• Application to the Commissioner for Labour: s.6B(4)(b) — the application must be made "within 6 months from the date of death of the employee … (but the Commissioner may, if he thinks fit, extend the period for making the application)". This route needs the employer's signed written consent (s.6B(1)), and the Commissioner cannot determine the claim where "the first application under subsection (4) has not been made within 24 months from the date of death" (s.6B(2)(g)).
• Application to the Court: s.14(1) — "in the case of death, within 24 months from the date of death or prior to a determination made by the Commissioner under section 6B(1)(a), whichever is the earlier". A late application may still be received if the Court "is satisfied that there was reasonable excuse" (s.14(4)).
• Notice to the employer is rarely an issue in a site death: paragraph (a) of the proviso to s.14(1) — where the application is made in respect of a death from an accident on the employer's premises or at a place where the employee was working under the control of the employer or of any person employed by the employer, and the employee died there or without leaving the vicinity, the want of a notice "shall not be a bar to the maintenance of proceedings".

The 3-year limitation on the common-law side (Cap. 347 ss.27, 28) and its four layers are set out in the employees' compensation guide .

He was not wearing the harness — is the claim gone? Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(b)

This is the question families ask most, and the one most often answered wrongly. It takes two provisions.

Section 5(4)(b) — breaking a regulation or an order still leaves the accident within the employment:

"an accident to an employee shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of his employment, notwithstanding that the employee was at the time when the accident happened acting in contravention of any statutory or other regulation applicable to his employment, or of any orders given by or on behalf of his employer, or that he was acting without instructions from his employer, if such act was done by the employee for the purposes of and in connection with his employer's trade or business"

So a worker who did not clip on, did not wear a helmet, or broke a site rule — provided he was doing it to do the employer's work — is still "deemed" to have met with an accident arising out of the employment. That alone does not take him outside the Ordinance.

Section 5(3) — serious and wilful misconduct, with an exit for death cases:

"In any proceedings under this Ordinance where it is proved that the injury to an employee is attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of that employee, or that an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment is deliberately aggravated by the employee, any compensation claimed in respect of that injury shall be disallowed; except that where the injury results in death or serious incapacity, the Court on consideration of all the circumstances may award the compensation provided by this Ordinance or such part thereof as it shall think fit."

Taken apart: first, the opening words are "where it is proved" — the burden is on the party alleging it, the employer. Second, the threshold is "serious and wilful", not ordinary carelessness. In [2025] HKDC 1929 ¶16–17 (a non-fatal case in which the respondent did not appear, and in which the judge said it was unnecessary to decide the point and noted it for completeness), the court cited a 1906 House of Lords decision ([1906] AC 409) for reading "wilful" as a deliberate decision rather than a thoughtless act on the spur of the moment, and "serious" as describing the misconduct itself rather than its consequences — that is this site's summary, not a quotation. Third, even where it is proved, if the injury results in death or serious incapacity the Court "may award the compensation provided by this Ordinance or such part thereof as it shall think fit" — all, part, or on the wording nothing, at the court's discretion.

So the accurate statement is: not wearing the gear does not automatically end the death claim; nor does it mean the claim "will be paid in full". This article cites no fatal-fall judgment applying the s.5(3) proviso; the proviso is set out from its text, and nothing is said about how the discretion is usually exercised. This site's employees' compensation guide says Cap. 282 has no proportionate, contributory-negligence-style reduction; that is true of ordinary carelessness. The "such part thereof" wording in s.5(3) is the Ordinance's only route to a partial award, and the two statements do not conflict.

The common-law side: how contributory negligence is deducted

A common-law claim must prove fault, and the deceased's own fault reduces the damages. Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance (Cap. 23) s.21(1):

"Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage"

Section 21(4) carries the same proportionate reduction into a Fatal Accidents Ordinance claim. The Chinese text of the Ordinance uses 共分疏忽.

In the following six defended falls judgments, the deductions, case by case, were:

What the table shows: where there was no anchorage, the courts refused to deduct for not clipping on (nil), and the 10% in [2021] HKDC 1026 was for the deceased's own statutory duty, not for the harness; where the worker defied a known warning the deduction was 35% ([2024] HKDC 420); where anchor points and an enforced rule existed and he knowingly defied it, the claim failed altogether and the deduction would have been 50% ([2025] HKDC 2171). No range or band is stated here, because the judgments do not state one; each case stands on its own facts. Every case in the table was defended; none of these figures is an assessment in the employer's absence.

[2025] HKDC 2171 is the contractor's win and deserves its own words (a Chinese-language judgment; this site's rendering of ¶27): the worker's own evidence showed he clearly understood that the independent lifeline was not to be unclipped on the bamboo scaffold, let alone that he should jump into the floor without any safety measure — a reckless and negligent decision. The court found the contractor had comprehensive measures to ensure workers followed the safety instructions (¶30), and the worker's conduct was not reasonably foreseeable. Read beside [2021] HKDC 1026, the two results contrast: where anchorage and an enforced rule existed the contractor won; where there was nothing to clip to, the court refused to deduct for the missing harness. Conversely, [2024] HKDC 420 ¶62 stands for the point that a warning alone, with no system to make sure it is followed, leaves the employer liable — only the worker's own share is taken off.

There is one more way to lose that has nothing to do with the harness: causation. [2024] HKDC 1788 ¶44 (the plaintiff said he fell 1–2 m down a slope; the court did not accept his version): "In other words, there was simply no causal link between the use (or impossibility to use) the safety mechanism provided by the Defendants and the Plaintiff's injury." Even if it is proved that no belts were issued, a fall that had nothing to do with the belt does not succeed on that ground.

The first four weeks: the evidence that disappears, the Labour Department investigation, the coroner's papers

The legal deadlines run in years, but every case in the table above was won or lost on evidence fixed in the weeks after the accident. In the judgments cited above the courts relied on: the Labour Department's accident investigation report with its photographs and measurements ([2021] HKDC 1026 ¶14; [2026] HKDC 555 ¶11); the declarations the Department took from co-workers, the boss and the family ([2024] HKDC 975 ¶18, admitted with the agreement of the applicant and the Fund Board); the employer's own documents — Form 2 ([2026] HKDC 555 ¶99(ii)), the lifeline inspection certificate ([2024] HKCFI 1237 ¶29(3)), wage records; and the physical state of the site — whether there was a rail, whether there was an anchorage. Scaffolds are struck, gear is repaired or discarded, CCTV is overwritten, casual workers move to the next site — those are not legal deadlines but the movement of objects and people; this article makes no statement about CCTV retention periods or any rule compelling preservation of the gear before proceedings (see the closing section).

The Labour Department's investigation and Form 2. Section 15(1): "Notice of any accident which results in the death of the employee within 3 days after the accident shall be given in the prescribed form to the Commissioner by the employer not later than 7 days after the accident irrespective of whether the accident gives rise to any liability to pay compensation." The prescribed form is Form 2 in the Schedule to the Employees' Compensation Regulations. Section 15(3)(a): on receiving the notice, if it appears to the Commissioner that a claim may arise, he may inquire whether there are members of the family and "inform such members of the family, if any, of the reported cause and circumstances of the death of the employee and advise them of their right to compensation". In a June 2026 press release on a fatal industrial accident the Department's spokesman said: "We commenced an immediate on-site investigation as soon as we were notified of the accident and issued suspension notices to the contractors concerned …", and "We will complete the investigation as soon as possible to identify the cause of the accident, ascertain the liability of the duty holders and recommend improvement measures. We will take actions pursuant to the law if there is any violation of the work safety legislation." The same release's standard paragraph says the Department will "assist family members of the deceased to claim employees' compensation" and, for those in financial difficulty, "assist them to apply for appropriate emergency funds".

The Fatal Cases Office. The Department's Concise Guide to the Employees' Compensation Ordinance gives the address: Fatal Cases Office, Room 601, 6/F, Harbour Building, 38 Pier Road, Central. The Department's fatal-cases leaflet states the application periods: "Compensation for death: within 6 months from the date of death of the employee. Reimbursement of funeral and medical attendance expenses: within 30 days from the day of cremation / burial of the employee or the day on which the Commissioner receives the employer's written consent to determination, whichever is later." Where the claim is to be determined by the Commissioner, the leaflet states that interim payments are payable by the employer to the deceased's spouse, comprising an initial payment and monthly payments "at the rate of 50% of the monthly earnings of the deceased employee", not exceeding in aggregate 45% of the death compensation. The leaflet lists what to bring to the interview: the applicant's identity card, the deceased's identity card, the death certificate or the certificate of order authorising burial or cremation, and relevant documents. If the employer does not consent or the dispute is not resolved, the claim must be lodged with the District Court within 24 months of death, and the office "will, upon request, assist the claimants by referring them to the Legal Aid Department or the District Court".

The coroner's papers. Coroners Ordinance (Cap. 504) s.13(1): where a coroner "has decided that he will hold an inquest", and a properly interested person requests a copy of a witness statement or medical or technical report relating to the death that is in the coroner's possession, "before the inquest into the death", then "the coroner shall comply with the request". Section 13(2): where the coroner has decided not to hold an inquest, a properly interested person may request the police report and the coroner "shall comply with the request", deleting particulars that identify witnesses unless they have consented. The timing, in other words, is "before the inquest", not after. An inquest does not determine civil liability (s.44 of that Ordinance); the detail of that provision is not developed here.

After the company is acquitted

After a worker dies, the Labour Department prosecutes the contractor; the contractor instructs senior counsel and, after a long trial, is found not guilty. The family assumes that ends the claim. The law says otherwise.

First, an acquittal does not bind the civil court. The Court of Appeal in [2025] HKCA 64 ¶51 restated the common-law rule established in [1943] KB 587, quoting a leading evidence textbook: "At common law, a judgment in personam (whether delivered in civil or criminal proceedings) is no evidence of the truth of the decision or of its grounds (whether findings of fact or the legal consequence of those findings), between strangers, or a party and a stranger, except …" (the listed exceptions — questions of public and general interest, certain bankruptcy, administration and patent cases, and contract, admission or acquiescence — do not concern a work-death claim). A family suing a contractor was not a party to the prosecution against the contractor; it is a "stranger". The rule was abrogated by Evidence Ordinance s.62 for convictions only ([2025] HKDC 2077 ¶29–36); for acquittals, the Ordinance says nothing.

A Hong Kong judgment that addresses an acquitted contractor and a family's claim directly is [2024] HKCFI 1147 (a fatal industrial accident; the defendants were acquitted after a 15-day trial of every charge that overlapped the civil issues (1147 ¶11, ¶18); the deceased left a wife and young son, and the administrators sued for the dependants and the estate: [2024] HKCFI 1147 ¶3; [2025] HKCFI 5147 ¶6–7). ¶18: "The defendants were acquitted of all the charges in the criminal trial, and by that I mean all the charges which overlap with the material issues in this civil trial. Hence, section 62 of the Evidence Ordinance does not apply." ¶22: "It is accepted by both parties today that the magistrate's findings are not binding on the civil court. Even though the evidence given in the criminal trial were given on oath, nonetheless in this civil trial, I would think that as a matter of principle, they are hearsay evidence." A second judge in the same action, [2025] HKCFI 5147 ¶18, said it again: the criminal transcript ran to four or five box files which the defendants, "in view of the verdict in their favour, heavily rely on. However, the findings and verdict of the trial Magistrate should not bind the plaintiffs or the court in the present case." ¶84: the magistrate's evaluation and findings "are but part of the evidence to be taken into account at the trial of the present case."

Second, the charge that was tried is often one the family could never sue on anyway. The main charge after a death is frequently the general duty in Cap. 59 s.6A. But Cap. 59 s.19:

"This Ordinance does not—(a) confer a right of action in civil proceedings in respect of a failure to comply with section 6A, 6B or 6BA; and (b) affect the extent (if any) to which breach of any other provision is actionable."

An acquittal on s.6A therefore answers a question about a provision the family cannot sue under; the family's claim runs on common-law negligence and on breach of the specific regulations (Cap. 59I regs 38B, 38AA and the like). Section 19(b) does not itself confer that right; it leaves unaffected "the extent (if any)" to which such breach is actionable. In [2021] HKDC 1026 ¶59–60 breaches of regs 38AA and 38B were pleaded and found as civil causes of action.

Third, what an acquittal removes is a shortcut, not the road. Had the contractor been convicted, Evidence Ordinance (Cap. 8) s.62(1) makes the conviction "admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving … that he committed that offence", and s.62(2)(a) provides that "he shall be taken to have committed that offence, unless the contrary is proved" — the burden shifts to the contractor. [2026] HKDC 555 ¶14: "The convictions against D1 and D2 establish a prima facie case on liability. The burden of proof in this civil action is shifted to the defence …". Without a conviction there is no shortcut and the family carries the burden throughout. But the material from the criminal case — the Labour Department report, witness statements, expert reports, the transcript — can be considered in the civil trial as hearsay ([2024] HKCFI 1147 ¶22, where the judge took the view that the criminal-trial evidence, though given on oath, is in principle hearsay in the civil trial; [2025] HKCFI 5147 ¶56, where the documents are described as part of the hearsay evidence to be taken into account at trial); whether a given document comes in still depends on its relevance to the civil issues (see [2024] HKCFI 1147 ¶19–20; [2025] HKDC 2077 ¶35–36). In [2024] HKCFI 1147, 30 box files of trial bundles were lodged (¶8); a later decision in the same action records that the parties had agreed to rely on the documents, reports and written opinions from the accident investigation and criminal prosecution without calling their makers, and that the plaintiffs had served hearsay notices for them ([2025] HKCFI 5147 ¶11–13, ¶56).

Fourth, the premise that contractors are "usually acquitted" is not what the figures show. The Labour Department table in the Government's reply to LCQ11 on 25 June 2025 (Annex 5, as at 15 June 2025) gives, for fatal industrial accidents in construction: 2020 — 18 fatal cases (counted by fatalities), 18 prosecution cases, 14 convicted; 2021 — 23, 22, 19; 2022 — 17, 14, 11; 2023 — 20, 19, 2; 2024 — 14 (6 investigations still ongoing), 6, 0. The Department notes that some prosecutions "have yet to conclude the corresponding court procedures". There is no acquittal column. On the table's figures, for 2020 to 2022, the years largely concluded, 54 prosecution cases and 44 convictions, about 81%; the Government does not break down the remaining 10. On a second series (LCQ14, 30 November 2022), the conviction rate for occupational safety and health summonses across all industries was 78% in 2019, 80% in 2020 and 71% in 2021. What the figures support is that conviction is the majority outcome and that it comes slowly — not that acquittal is usual. Among the Labour Department prosecutions in the judgments cited here, three ended in acquittal, or a quashed conviction, on the fall charge ([2021] HKCFI 131, where the prosecution did not prove the contractor could reasonably expect the place to be one where construction work was being carried out (¶26, ¶32); [2022] HKCFI 316, where the reg 38H defence was made out; the proprietor in [2024] HKDC 975), and one in acquittal on all overlapping charges ([2024] HKCFI 1147) — a selected set of appellate and civil-adjacent cases, not a rate.

This site's reading: an acquittal answers "did the prosecution prove this charge beyond reasonable doubt". The family's claim asks "on the balance of probabilities, did the defendant fail to take reasonable care or breach a specific regulation, causing the fall". Different question, different standard, different evidence rules, and a different cast of defendants — a principal contractor, sub-contractor or occupier that was never charged can still be sued.

Where help exists

• Legal Aid Department: the financial eligibility limit is $452,320 under the Ordinary Legal Aid Scheme and $2,261,600 under the Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme, with effect from 27 March 2026 (Department page; Cap. 91 ss.5, 5A, L.N. 29 of 2026); the Ordinary Scheme covers "claims in respect of industrial accidents" and "employees' compensation", and coroner's inquests where, on the family's request, the Director considers "the interests of public justice require that legal aid be given" (Department's Ordinary Scheme page; Cap. 91 Schedule 2 Part 1 para 3). The successful workers in the table above, and the family in [2024] HKDC 975, were all legally aided. https://www.lad.gov.hk/eng/wnew/highlights_2026.html
• Labour Department Employees' Compensation Division and Fatal Cases Office: the Division's page states that it "assists family members of an employee who dies as a result of a work accident … to obtain compensation under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance". https://www.labour.gov.hk/eng/erb/content1.htm ; fatal-cases leaflet https://www.labour.gov.hk/common/public/pdf/ecd/FCO_Leaflet_English.pdf
• Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board (Employees Compensation Assistance Ordinance, Cap. 365): the backstop where the employer cannot pay, is uninsured or has vanished. Two notice rules can defeat the whole application: s.25B(1) — a person who commences proceedings by writ for compensation or damages must serve on the Board (and, where applicable, the insurer) a notice of the proceedings "in writing in a form specified by the Board, signed by the person and accompanied by a copy of the writ", "by registered post", and "not later than 30 days after the date on which the writ is filed with the court"; s.25B(5)(a) — "separate notices are required … in respect of a claim for compensation and a claim for damages"; s.25B(6) — a person who fails to comply "shall not be entitled to any payment under this Ordinance in respect of the claim". Separately, a person who has served that notice and intends, within 45 days after serving it, to settle the claim or obtain judgment must give the Board written notice at least 10 days beforehand (s.25B(3)); failure to do so has the same consequence (s.25B(6)). The Board may extend the 30-day period in s.25B(1) where "there are good reasons" (s.25B(2)), and may likewise shorten the 10-day period in s.25B(3) (s.25B(4)). Relief payments for damages (s.20A) require a court judgment, are reduced by employees' compensation paid or payable, and exclude interest and costs (s.20B); up to $6,000,000 is paid in full, and above that a first payment of $6,000,000 followed by monthly payments of $40,000 or the worker's monthly earnings, whichever is higher (s.20C, Schedule 4; in force since 14 May 2021). https://www.ecafb.org.hk/en/faq.php
• Duty Lawyer Service, Free Legal Advice Scheme: its page describes "preliminary one-off legal advice", states "There is no means test and the service is absolutely free of charge", and that the Scheme "will not offer any follow up service nor representation"; each interview is 20 to 30 minutes. http://www.dutylawyer.org.hk/en/free/free.asp

Frequently asked questions

Related topics

• Employees' compensation for work injuries in Hong Kong — the s.6B–6E machinery for fatal cases, the four-layer 3-year limitation on the common-law side, the s.26 set-off
• Case notes: work-injury compensation
• Legal aid eligibility

Sources

Every statutory passage quoted is taken from the following consolidated versions (Hong Kong e-Legislation):

• Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations (Cap. 59 sub. leg. I), regs 2, 38A, 38AA, 38B, 38H, 38I, 48, 68, 71; version in force 17 July 2026 — the 2 m rule, the defence, belt and helmet duties, penalties
• Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Lifting Appliances and Lifting Gear) Regulations (Cap. 59 sub. leg. J), reg 9; version in force 19 December 2024 — crane platforms (2 m)
• Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance (Cap. 59), ss.6A, 19; version in force 28 April 2023 — general duty, civil liability
• Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance (Cap. 509), s.6; version in force 28 April 2023 — employer's general duty
• Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282), ss.3, 5, 6, 6A, 6B, 14, 15, 24, 26, 48A and the Sixth Schedule; version in force 14 May 2026 — member of the family, no-fault liability, death compensation, time limits, principal contractor
• Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance (Cap. 23), s.21; version in force 15 February 2017 — contributory negligence
• Evidence Ordinance (Cap. 8), s.62; version in force 14 May 2026 — convictions as evidence in civil proceedings
• Employees Compensation Assistance Ordinance (Cap. 365), ss.20A, 20B, 20C, 25B and Schedule 4; version in force 14 May 2021 — the Fund, the 30-day notice
• Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221), s.113B and Schedule 8; version in force 14 May 2026 — fine levels
• Coroners Ordinance (Cap. 504), s.13; version in force 21 May 2026 — supply of witness statements and reports
• Legal Aid Ordinance (Cap. 91), ss.5, 5A and Schedule 2; version in force 27 March 2026 — financial eligibility
• Labour Department, Overview of Work-at-Height Safety, 2nd ed. (February 2023), para 1.1: https://www.labour.gov.hk/eng/public/os/D/Overview_of_Work_at_Height_Safety.pdf
• Labour Department, commencement of the Occupational Safety and Health Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Ordinance 2023: https://www.labour.gov.hk/eng/news/Amendment_Ordinance.htm
• Labour Department, adjustment of compensation levels under ECO, PMCO and ODCO, in force 17 April 2025: https://www.labour.gov.hk/eng/news/ECO_PMCO_ODCO_Amendment_2025.htm
• Labour Department, A Concise Guide to the Employees' Compensation Ordinance (April 2026) and the fatal-cases leaflet: https://www.labour.gov.hk/eng/public/ecd/pco360.pdf ; https://www.labour.gov.hk/common/public/pdf/ecd/FCO_Leaflet_English.pdf
• Labour Department, Employees' Compensation Division page: https://www.labour.gov.hk/eng/erb/content1.htm
• Labour Department, Occupational Safety and Health Statistics 2025: https://www.labour.gov.hk/common/osh/pdf/OSH_Statistics_2025_en.pdf
• Labour Department press release, 29 June 2026: https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202606/29/P2026062900789.htm (Chinese: https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202606/29/P2026062900787.htm)
• Legislative Council Official Record of Proceedings, 25 June 2025, LCQ11 Annex 5, pp. 263–264: https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr2025/english/counmtg/hansard/cm20250625-translate-e.pdf
• Government press release LCQ14, 30 November 2022: https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202211/30/P2022113000215.htm
• Legal Aid Department, 2026 adjustment of financial eligibility limits; Ordinary Legal Aid Scheme scope: https://www.lad.gov.hk/eng/wnew/highlights_2026.html ; https://www.lad.gov.hk/eng/las/civil/olas.html
• Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board, FAQ; scheme page: https://www.ecafb.org.hk/en/faq.php ; https://www.ecafb.org.hk/en/scheme.php ; Government press release 14 May 2021: https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202105/14/P2021051200309.htm
• Duty Lawyer Service, Free Legal Advice Scheme: http://www.dutylawyer.org.hk/en/free/free.asp

Judgments quoted

• [2021] HKDC 1026, ¶14, 59–60, 64–65, 75, 78 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkdc/2021/1026
• [2024] HKDC 975, ¶4, 18–21, 73, 74 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkdc/2024/975
• [2025] HKDC 2171, ¶24, 27, 30, 32 (Chinese-language judgment; this site's rendering) — https://www.hklii.hk/tc/cases/hkdc/2025/2171
• [2024] HKCFI 1237, ¶29(3), 44, 47 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkcfi/2024/1237
• [2026] HKDC 555, ¶11, 14, 32, 38, 99(ii) — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkdc/2026/555
• [2022] HKCFI 2179, ¶21, 29, 63, 72–76 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkcfi/2022/2179
• [2024] HKDC 420, ¶62, 63 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkdc/2024/420
• [2024] HKDC 1788, ¶44 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkdc/2024/1788
• [2023] HKCFI 3070, ¶2, 7, 15, 104–106 (Chinese-language judgment; Judiciary's English translation quoted) — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkcfi/2023/3070
• [2022] HKCFI 316, ¶21, 26–28, 30 (Chinese-language judgment) — https://www.hklii.hk/tc/cases/hkcfi/2022/316
• [2021] HKCFI 131, ¶26, 32 (Chinese-language judgment) — https://www.hklii.hk/tc/cases/hkcfi/2021/131
• [2025] HKDC 1929, ¶16–17 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkdc/2025/1929
• [2025] HKCA 64, ¶51–52 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkca/2025/64
• [2024] HKCFI 1147, ¶3, 8, 11, 18–20, 22 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkcfi/2024/1147
• [2025] HKCFI 5147, ¶6–7, 11–13, 18, 56, 84 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkcfi/2025/5147
• [2025] HKDC 2077, ¶29–36 — https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkdc/2025/2077

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 particular workplaces off a construction site (flat renovation, signboards, warehouse racking, delivery work) fall within "construction work" as defined in Cap. 59 s.2 so that Cap. 59I applies. This article states only that reg 38B is confined to construction sites and quotes the two general-duty provisions; the classification of any given scenario is a question of interpretation on which nothing is said.
• CCTV retention periods, and any legal rule compelling preservation of the harness, anchorage or site condition before proceedings. No statement is made.
• The scope and commencement of the "L.N. 90 of 2026" amending note carried on Cap. 59I regs 68 and 71. The penalties quoted are the text of the version in force on 17 July 2026; what that notice changed is not stated.
• How the court in practice exercises the s.5(3) discretion in a fatal fall. This article cites no judgment applying the proviso to a fatal fall; the text is quoted and no outcome is predicted.
• The item-by-item Seventh Schedule percentages, and the statutory detail of ss.6C–6E (interim payments, payment periods, funeral-expense applications). Only the periods and rates as stated in the Labour Department leaflet are cited; the statutory detail is in this site's employees' compensation guide.
• The scope of an inquest, the available conclusions, any limit on findings of criminal liability, and the full text of Cap. 504 s.44. Only s.13 on the supply of documents is quoted.
• The text of Part IV of the Evidence Ordinance on hearsay and its notice procedure. Only the judgments' statements that the criminal-trial evidence is in principle hearsay in the civil trial, and the record that hearsay notices were served for the investigation and prosecution documents, are cited; Part IV itself is not quoted.
• An official rate of acquittal in prosecutions after fatal construction accidents. The Government's figures carry no acquittal column; only the prosecution and conviction counts are given, and the residual is described as unsplit.
• Whether breach of Cap. 509 s.6 is civilly actionable. Cap. 509 has no equivalent of Cap. 59 s.19; no statement is made.
• The current sum for bereavement damages under Cap. 22 s.4, and whether the sum at death or at judgment applies. No statement is made.
• Any charitable or ex gratia fund specifically for families of construction fatalities. Beyond the Labour Department press-release reference to "appropriate emergency funds", no statement is made.