Injured on the Way to or from Work: Does It Count as a Work Injury?

Ordinarily, an injury on the way from home to work, or from work back home, is not a work injury: the Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282) requires an accident "arising out of and in the course of the employment", and ordinary travel between home and work is generally not in the course of the employment. But section 5(4)(d)–(g) lists four journeys on which an accident is deemed to be a work accident — riding in transport the employer arranged, driving transport the employer arranged or provided, travelling to or from work during a No. 8 or higher signal, a Red or Black rainstorm or an extreme-conditions period, and travelling to or from places outside Hong Kong for work. Each has conditions that must all be met; for the storm-period journey, the remaining requirement can be met in any one of three ways.

This article supplements Employees' Compensation for Work Injuries in Hong Kong and covers one boundary only: the journey and the meal break. For how compensation is computed, the time limits and the procedure, see the main guide.

Quick reference: what counts and what does not

The test: "arising out of and in the course of the employment"

Whether an injury is a work injury always starts with section 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."

Both halves must be met: "in the course of" the employment and "arising out of" it.

"In the course of the employment" does not mean "while employed". In [2013] HKDC 667, para 23, the District Court cited the statement adopted by the Court of Appeal in Lam Min v Yau On Construction Co [1981] HKLR 646 at 650: "the phrase 'in the course of his employment' does not mean during the currency of the engagement, but means in the course of work which the workman is employed to do and what is incident to it; and absence on leave for the workman's own purpose is an interruption of the employment". Ordinary travel between home and work is generally not in the course of the employment; section 5(4)(d)–(g) are the journeys the Ordinance expressly deems to be work accidents. A journey outside those four goes back to the general test in section 5(1).

Once the course of employment is shown, "arising out of" is presumed. Section 5(4)(a):

"an accident arising in the course of an employee’s employment shall be deemed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, also to have arisen out of that employment;"

The presumption covers the "arising out of" half only: the accident must first be shown to have happened in the course of the employment, and the presumption then stands unless the other side produces evidence to the contrary.

The four deemed journeys — the statutory text

All four paragraphs work the same way: if the conditions are met, the accident "shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of his employment".

Paragraph (d) — riding as a passenger in transport the employer arranged

"an accident to an employee shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of his employment if it happens to the employee while he is, with the express or implied permission of his employer, travelling as a passenger by any means of transport to or from his place of work and at the time of the accident, the means of transport is being operated— (i) by or on behalf of his employer or by some other person pursuant to arrangements made with his employer; and (ii) other than as part of a public transport service;"

In plain terms, five conditions, all of which must be met:

• the employer's express or implied permission;
• you are a passenger (if you are driving, see paragraph (e));
• the journey is to or from your place of work;
• at the time of the accident the transport is operated by or on behalf of the employer, or by some other person under arrangements made with the employer;
• it is operated other than as part of a public transport service.

Paragraph (e) — driving transport the employer arranged or provided

"an accident to an employee shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of his employment if it happens to the employee while he is driving or operating any means of transport arranged or provided by or on behalf of his employer or by some other person pursuant to arrangements made with his employer between his place of residence and his place of work, travelling by a direct route— (i) to his place of work for the purposes of and in connection with his employment; or (ii) to his place of residence after attending to those purposes;"

Five conditions, all of which must be met:

• you are driving or operating the transport;
• it was arranged or provided by or on behalf of the employer, or by some other person under arrangements made with the employer;
• the journey is between your place of residence and your place of work;
• by a direct route;
• either (i) to work, for the purposes of and in connection with your employment, or (ii) home after attending to those purposes.

Paragraph (f) — travelling during a No. 8 or higher signal, a Red or Black rainstorm or an extreme-conditions period

"an accident to an employee shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of his employment if it happens to the employee when, within the duration of a gale warning or rainstorm warning, or within the period (including any extended period) during which extreme conditions exist as specified in an extreme conditions announcement, he is travelling between his place of residence and his place of work— (i) to his place of work, by a direct route within a period of 4 hours before the time of commencement of his working hours for that day or to his place of residence, within a period of 4 hours after the time of cessation of his working hours for that day, as the case may be; or (ii) in such other circumstances as the Court thinks reasonable, and for the purposes of this paragraph— (A) gale warning (烈風警告) means a warning of the occurrence of a tropical cyclone in, or in the vicinity of, Hong Kong by the use of the tropical cyclone warning signals issued by the Director of the Hong Kong Observatory to the effect that any of the tropical cyclone warning signals commonly referred to as No. 8NW, 8SW, 8NE, 8SE, 9 or 10 is in force; (B) rainstorm warning (暴雨警告) means a warning of a heavy rainstorm in, or in the vicinity of, Hong Kong by the use of the heavy rainstorm warning signals issued by the Director of the Hong Kong Observatory to the effect that any of the heavy rainstorm warning signals commonly referred to as Red or Black is in force; (C) extreme conditions announcement (極端情況公布) means an announcement made by the Chief Secretary for Administration stating the existence of extreme conditions that arise from a super typhoon or other natural disaster of a substantial scale during the period (including any extended period) specified in the announcement; (D) super typhoon (超強颱風) means a typhoon that has a maximum sustained wind speed of 185 km/h or above near its centre;"

Conditions 1 and 2 must both be met:

• the accident happens within one of these periods: while tropical cyclone signal No. 8NW, 8SW, 8NE, 8SE, 9 or 10 is in force; while the Red or Black rainstorm signal is in force; or within the period (including any extended period) specified in the Chief Secretary for Administration's extreme conditions announcement;
• you are travelling between your place of residence and your place of work.

Then any one of conditions 3 to 5:

• to work: by a direct route, within 4 hours before your working hours begin that day;
• home: "to his place of residence, within a period of 4 hours after the time of cessation of his working hours for that day";
• in such other circumstances as the Court thinks reasonable, while travelling between residence and workplace.

Paragraph (g) — travelling to or from places outside Hong Kong for work

"an accident to an employee shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of his employment if it happens to the employee while he is, with the express or implied permission of his employer, travelling by any means of transport for the purposes of and in connection with his employment between Hong Kong and any place outside Hong Kong or between any place outside Hong Kong and any other such place."

Four conditions, all of which must be met:

• the employer's express or implied permission;
• for the purposes of and in connection with your employment;
• by any means of transport;
• between Hong Kong and a place outside Hong Kong, or between two places outside Hong Kong.

For when the Ordinance applies to an injury outside Hong Kong, and how foreign compensation is set off, see " Accidents outside Hong Kong " in the main guide.

Meal breaks

Crossing between the employer's premises at the staff meal — [2013] HKDC 667. A restaurant occupied units on both sides of a street, and its employees had to cross the road frequently (para 2). A waitress on her first day (paras 3, 21) was about to have the 5 pm staff meal with colleagues in one unit; she walked to the other side of the road to get bowls for the meal and was hit by a taxi when she returned with them (para 3). The employer argued that staff were free to leave for meals, so the break was not in the course of employment; the court did not accept that (para 22). Noting that staff had short breaks of 20 to 30 minutes for their two meals and usually dined at the restaurant, the judge held that "by crossing the road to obtain the bowls for the meal, the applicant was engaged in an activity reasonably incidental to her employment" (para 24). Compensation totalled HK$122,777 (s. 9 HK$43,200, s. 10 HK$79,200, s. 10A HK$377; para 30).

Lunch at a place of your own choosing — [2022] HKDC 284 (a costs ruling). An airport security officer finished her morning duties and had taken off all her equipment for return to the employer; still in uniform, she went for lunch at a restaurant of her choice inside the airport which had no connection with the employer, and was injured when the chair broke (paras 2–4). She later discontinued her employees' compensation claim with the court's leave, and only costs remained in dispute (para 1). The judge noted that she could have her lunch at any place she wanted, that there was no requirement to wear the uniform at lunchtime and keeping it on was a matter of convenience (para 17); he found she had not shown her case was "so strong that she is bound to win" (para 42), and ordered costs to the employer (para 44). This was a ruling on costs: the question the court dealt with was whether her case was strong enough to carry the costs of the discontinued claim.

A car the employer arranged

[2023] HKDC 1656. A renovation worker finished a job at a monastery in Tsuen Wan and was picked up in a private car arranged through the foreman on the employer's behalf (paras 4, 98); the car was in an accident on Tuen Mun Road and he was injured (para 4). The employer's side said the car was taking him to lunch with friends at Lam Tei, Tuen Mun (para 5); the judge preferred the worker's evidence and found that the car was taking him to another site in Tin Shui Wai to work (paras 89–93). The judge added that, even if that finding were wrong and the trip was a private one, the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment by reason of section 5(4)(d) (para 94), and said (para 96):

"It is important to note that there is no requirement for the destination of the journey in section 5(4)(d). The presumption will arise as long as the journey is 'to or from his place of work'. It does not matter whether the journey is for personal purpose (such as bringing the employee to lunch or home) or work purpose (such as bringing the employee to another place of work)."

So in the judge's view section 5(4)(d) does not look at the destination: so long as the journey is to or from the place of work, a ride to lunch, home or another site is treated the same. Note that this was the judge's alternative reasoning, on assumed facts, after finding that the trip was a work trip. In that same alternative analysis, the judge treated section 5(4)(d) as a presumption that evidence could rebut: he found that the car was operated under arrangements between the foreman (on the employer's behalf) and the driver and was not part of a public transport service (para 98), and, the employer's side having adduced no evidence to rebut it, that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment (para 100).

Still on duty, still within the work area

[2020] HKDC 1246. An estate cleaner's hours were 7:30 am to 5 pm (para 8). At 4:18 pm — with no record of clocking out, still in uniform — she was knocked down by a public light bus at a pedestrian crossing on a public road in the estate and suffered severe multiple injuries (paras 1, 11). The road lay between the station where she returned her cart and the blocks she was assigned to clean, so she had to cross it to carry on working (paras 63, 73–74). The employer said cleaners were allowed to stop work from about 3:30 pm; the court rejected that (paras 52, 57). It also said she was collecting drink cans for herself; the court found the evidence insufficient (para 58). The judge held:

"During her time of work, the Applicant would have been duty-bound to carry on with her cleaning duty irrespective of whether she had returned the Cart and Tools or not. When the Applicant ran a risk incidental to her employment and was thereby injured, the risk was inherent in the nature of the employment. It follows that the Accident arose out of the employment. It is immaterial that the risk was one which was shared by all members of the public." (para 74)

The judge found no evidence of sufficient cogency to displace the presumption that the accident arose out of the employment (para 75), held that the accident was in the course of and arose out of the employment (para 76), and made a net award of HK$1,001,163.88, including compensation for permanent total incapacity (s. 7) and for needing the attention of another person (s. 8) (para 91).

No. 8 or higher signal, Red and Black rainstorms, extreme conditions

The conditions of section 5(4)(f) are set out above. In practice, three points matter:

• the signal must be the right one: a No. 3 signal or an Amber rainstorm warning is outside the definitions;
• the accident must happen while the warning is in force (or within the period an extreme-conditions announcement specifies);
• the 4 hours are tied to that day's working hours: within 4 hours before starting work, or within 4 hours after finishing; where neither fits, only "such other circumstances as the Court thinks reasonable" remains.

A related case of a different kind: [2025] HKCFI 4030. A food-delivery rider finished his last order after the No. 8 signal had been hoisted, then rode his own motorcycle home and, on his account, was blown over by a sudden gust of wind and injured (paras 10–12); it was not disputed that he was the delivery company's employee (para 3). This was a common-law negligence claim. The Court of First Instance held that the company, as employer, placed its riders in an unacceptably dangerous situation by letting them accept orders right up to the last minute before the No. 8 signal and expecting them to complete the orders already accepted (paras 60–61); the rider bore 20% contributory negligence, and after deducting the HK$817,861 employees' compensation already received the court awarded HK$1,348,209 (paras 136, 139–140). What the court decided was the employer's liability in negligence at common law; the employees' compensation already received was deducted from the damages.

Not sure whether it counts? Report it anyway

Whether an injury counts is decided later; the duties to notify and to report do not wait for that answer.

• Notify the employer: section 14(1) requires notice of the accident to be given to the employer by or on behalf of the employee "as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and before the employee has voluntarily left the employment in which he was injured"; the notice may be written or oral (s. 14(2)).
• The employer must report to the Labour Department whether or not compensation turns out to be payable: under section 15(1A), notice of an accident resulting in total or partial incapacity must be given to the Commissioner within 14 days after the accident, "irrespective of whether the accident gives rise to any liability to pay compensation".
• 24 months: section 14(1) also requires the application for compensation to be made to the court within 24 months from the accident (a death is computed differently); the Commissioner's assessment route has its own 24-month limit (s. 16A(1A)). For both limits, and the exception on the court route, see " How the process actually works " in the main guide.

Sources

• Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282), ss. 5, 14, 15, 16A; current version (chapter version date 14 May 2026; the current text of s. 5 in force from 2 July 2021). https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap282
• [2013] HKDC 667: https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkdc/2013/667
• [2020] HKDC 1246: https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkdc/2020/1246
• [2022] HKDC 284: https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkdc/2022/284
• [2023] HKDC 1656: https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkdc/2023/1656
• [2025] HKCFI 4030: https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkcfi/2025/4030