In Mary Ann Allas Pereira (the administratrix of the estate of Baby Jane Teodoro Allas, deceased) v Jamil Bushra [2026] HKDC 1148, the District Court ordered an employer to pay over HK$250,000 in damages following the dismissal of a critically ill foreign domestic helper (the “Employee”). This case illustrates the approach adopted by Hong Kong courts in assessing damages in disability discrimination claims. Facts The Employee commenced employment under a 2-year contract in November 2017. She was subsequently diagnosed with cervical cancer in early 2019. Three days later, her employment was terminated. Notably, the termination letter expressly referred to the Employee’s cervical cancer diagnosis as one of the reasons for termination. With the assistance of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), the Employee sued her employer (the “Respondent”) for disability discrimination in the District Court in December 2020. Tragically, the Employee passed away a few months after the claim was filed. Her younger sister (the “Claimant”), as co-administratrix of the Employee’s estate, was granted leave to continue the proceedings on the Employee’s behalf. The Respondent did not participate in the proceedings and a default judgment was entered against her, with damages to be assessed. The decision The Claimant sought damages for (i) loss of income, (ii) compensation for injury to feelings and (iii) medical expenses. In determining the appropriate remedies, the court stressed that it would only consider the Respondent’s conduct that is unlawful under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance (DDO). Other unlawful acts should not be a relevant consideration. (i) Loss of income Based on the evidence, the court accepted that, but for the unlawful discrimination, the Employee would have remained employed through to the expiry of her fixed term contract. In reaching that conclusion, the court noted that there were no allegations of poor performance in either the termination letter or any contemporaneous evidence. The court also took into account that the Employee had been certified as fit to work by a medical practitioner. Accordingly, the court awarded the Claimant HK$33,367 for the Employee’s loss of income, being the salaries which the Employee would have earned during the remainder of her contract (i.e. 8 months and 23 days), less the one month’s salary in lieu of notice already paid by the Respondent. (ii) Compensation for injury to feelings In assessing damages for injury to feelings, the learned Judge adopted the three broad bands of compensation (commonly known as the “Vento bands”) as updated by the Hong Kong District Court in Chan Wing Kum (陈咏琴) v Ming’s Piano Limited (第一流行钢琴教室有限公司) [2024] HKDC 2046 (see our earlier legal update on this case here). The updated “Vento bands” applicable in Hong Kong are as follows: Band Applicability Amount of damages Top The most serious cases, such as where there has been a lengthy campaign of discriminatory harassment against a claimant. HK$285,000 – HK$475,000 Middle Serious cases which do not merit an award in the top band. HK$95,000 – HK$285,000 Lower Less serious cases, such as where the act of discrimination is an isolated or one-off occurrence. HK$9,500 – HK$95,000   The court took into account (among other things) the following factors and held that the disability discrimination in this case fell within the first half of the “middle” band:- The act of discrimination was one-off. Nevertheless, the Employee was dismissed just three days after receiving a life-threatening cancer diagnosis. In the circumstances, the dismissal would have been a significant emotional blow when she was already dealing with the shock and anxiety arising from her illness. The Employee had worked for the Respondent and her family for around 15 months, performed her duties competently and enjoyed a good relationship with them. The court accepted that she would likely have felt a sense of betrayal following her sudden dismissal. The Employee suffered substantial emotional distress following her dismissal. She frequently cried, experienced difficulty sleeping and eating, and was left in a nervous and distressed state. The Employee was the sole breadwinner of her family, supporting five young children and her elderly mother. The dismissal therefore not only caused her serious emotional distress but also significant financial pressure. The Respondent never apologised to the Employee during her lifetime. The dismissal rendered the Employee’s work visa invalid after a two-week period and made her ineligible for subsidised public healthcare in Hong Kong. This left her with limited options for timely and affordable medical treatment. The court held that it was fair, reasonable and just to award HK$120,000 to the Claimant as compensation for injury to the Employee’s feelings. (iii) Medical expenses As a result of the termination, the Employee lost her eligibility for subsidised public healthcare in Hong Kong. Given the limited availability of medical treatment in the Employee’s hometown in the Philippines and her critical, life-threatening medical condition, the court accepted that it was reasonable for her to seek prompt private medical treatment in Hong Kong. Hence, the court held that the additional medical expenses of close to HK$100,000 incurred by the Employee as a result of her dismissal were recoverable. Turning to costs, the normal rule that costs follow the event does not apply in discrimination proceedings. Instead, each party will generally be required to bear their own costs unless the proceedings are brought maliciously or frivolously or there are special circumstances which warrant an award of costs. In this case, the court found that there were special circumstances justifying a costs order against the Respondent. The Respondent refused to engage with the EOC’s conciliation process and settlement negotiations, evaded service of court documents, and did not even participate in the proceedings. Such uncooperative behaviour forced the Claimant to unnecessarily pursue the action to its conclusion. Key takeaways Where an employer decides to terminate the employment of a sick employee, they should ensure that the decision is based solely on legitimate reasons unrelated to the employee’s disability. Employers should also maintain clear documentary record of the reasons underpinning that decision, as such documents may often come under close scrutiny in the event of a dispute. Discrimination claims are relatively easy to allege but can be resource intensive to defend. They may also attract adverse publicity and give rise to significant reputational and employee relations issues. The judgment is available here.

When a senior employee walks out of a termination meeting without signing a separation agreement, can the employer salvage the deal and its waiver simply by leaving the medical insurance running? A recent Hong Kong judgment delivers a clear answer: no. For employers who rely on separation agreements to achieve a clean break when separating with a senior employee, the decision is a timely reminder that informality can be costly. The Hong Kong Court of First Instance in Rydin Per Niclas Hakan v Wuza Yaki Ltd [2026] HKCFI 2940 confirmed that an employee who has expressly rejected separation terms will not be taken to have accepted them by conduct simply by continuing to use a benefit that remained technically available. Facts In July 2013, the respondent (the “Employee”) joined the appellant, a fish trading company (the “Company”), as Vice President of Sales. The employment contract included a six-month post-termination non-competition clause (the “PTR”). To uphold the PTR, the Company was required to notify the Employee within three weeks of serving the termination notice and pay compensation equal to 100% of his annual salary in the prior year (the “PTR Compensation”). In February 2024, the Company terminated the employment by payment in lieu of notice. On the same day, the Company presented the Employee with a proposed separation agreement (the “Separation Letter”) which included the following terms: His medical insurance would continue to be in place until 22 August 2024; His acceptance of the separation terms would be in full and final settlement of all and any claims he may have against the Company regarding his employment and the termination (the “Waiver”); and He would abide by the PTR but did not mention payment of any PTR Compensation. After a Company director explained the terms to the Employee, he stated that he did not agree to them and left without signing the letter. Despite declining the offer, the Employee (and his family) continued to use the medical insurance between March and August 2024. The dispute In September 2024, the Employee brought a Labour Tribunal claim against the Company for approximately HK$2.6 million, being a full year’s salary, as PTR Compensation. The Company argued that although the Employee had initially rejected the Separation Letter, the offer had been “revived” by the Company’s continued provision of the medical insurance. By using that insurance along with his family between March and August 2024, the Employee had, so the argument went, accepted the separation terms by conduct. If correct, this would have meant that the Waiver applied, extinguishing the Employee’s HK$2.6 million claim. The Labour Tribunal rejected this argument in its entirety and awarded the Employee the full HK$2.6 million. Undeterred, the Company applied to the Court of First Instance for leave to appeal. The central question was whether the Employee’s use of the medical insurance could constitute acceptance by conduct of the separation terms, including the all-important Waiver. The decision Leave to appeal was refused. The court emphasised that a contract will not readily be inferred from conduct alone. The conduct relied upon must be “unequivocally referable” to the alleged agreement and not merely consistent with it. Crucially, where one party knows the other has no intention to contract, no contract will be implied, however the facts are dressed up after the event. The court applied these principles to two questions: 1. Did the Company “revive” the offer in the Separation Letter? No. The Separation Letter expressly required the Employee to accept its terms by signing and returning a copy. He never did. After that rejection, the Company never communicated, expressly or otherwise, that the offer remained open. It never checked whether the Employee was using the insurance post-termination. Most damaging of all, the Company did not even raise the conduct-based acceptance argument until after all evidence had been taken at the Labour Tribunal, a telling indicator that the Company itself could not have intended for insurance usage to constitute acceptance. As for the insurance itself, the court held that its continued availability was not unequivocally referable to a revival of the rejected offer. It was equally consistent with simple administrative inaction of a failure to cancel the policy rather than a deliberate, positive step to keep the offer alive. In the court’s view, there was no offer remaining on the table. 2. Even if there had been a continuing offer, was it ever accepted? No. Even if an offer had somehow survived the Employee’s emphatic rejection at the meeting, the court found that using the insurance did not amount to acceptance. The Employee made clear at the meeting that he was rejecting the terms “once and for all”. His subsequent use of the insurance was readily explicable: the cover simply remained active and, when his wife enquired about their options, the insurer itself recommended they use it for eye examinations. That evidence was unchallenged. The court observed that standing back from the facts objectively, it made no sense to interpret them as the Employee having changed his mind and accepting the terms without telling the employer. Leave to appeal was refused. The Labour Tribunal’s award of HK$2.6 million in PTR Compensation stood in full. What this means for employers Exit negotiations should not be left to linger. If an employee rejects your separation offer and you wish to keep it open or make a fresh one, communicate that clearly and in writing. An employee’s continued use of a benefit that you have simply forgotten to cancel will not rescue you. Silence and administrative inaction are not offers. The judgment is available here.

Litigation partner Vincent Law and associate Ka Wai Leung discuss the pause on legalising basketball betting in Hong Kong in the June 2026 issue of Hong Kong Lawyer. The article examines Hong Kong’s abrupt pause in legalising basketball betting in 2026, despite earlier legislative approval and plans for rollout. It also explores concerns over emerging prediction markets and their uncertain legal status, highlighting potential impacts on gambling regulation and future reforms.