Share
Mental health and wellbeing have long been essential in workplace priorities. On occasion difficult conversations between an employer and employee, or between employees, may be necessary to ensure smooth work operations, which may have an impact on the employee. Such conversations must be conducted appropriately. In a recent ruling, a Hong Kong court examined when such conversations will be considered as having been conducted in a manner that crosses the threshold into compensable psychiatric injury under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282) (ECO). Notably, it was held that an “accident” may arise where inappropriate and unexpected words are exchanged in the context of the conversation, and when the psychiatric injuries are directly caused by the accident, there could be a claim under the ECO.
In Chan Man Sau v 風采中學 (Elegantia College) [2025], the Court highlighted key principles on the scope of employers’ liability under ECO, as set in Yeung Yim Ngor Angela v Po Leung Kuk No 1 WH Cheung College [2019] having regard to UK authorities:
- There must be an accident: While “personal injury by accident” was not defined in the ECO, the Court considered the word “accident” was to be interpreted in its natural everyday sense. An “accident” is an unlooked-for mishap or an untoward event which was not expected or designed. Where an employer had an exercisable right to suspend an employee and the conversation was handled appropriately, the suspension cannot be said to be an “accident”, even if the employee did not anticipate it.
- Words and context are important: For a conversation to amount to an “accident”, the words used by the employer to the employee had to be “outrageous and untoward”, and the contents had to be “sudden and unfortunate” in the course and context of the conversation. The key is not the act of suspension, dismissal or investigation itself, but the manner of carrying out such act by the employer.
- Causation of psychiatric injuries: The accident must have been causative to the employees’ alleged mental injuries. Apart from assistance from medical expert opinion, the Court would also adopt a common sense approach, including observing whether the employee had an inclination to be particularly susceptible to react to certain scenarios, such as being prone to cry and agitated, and less capable of withstanding stress.
Facts of the Chan Man Sau Decision (Decision).
Mr Chan, the Applicant, was a physical education and mathematics teacher at Elegantia College, the Respondent. He commenced six employees’ compensation proceedings against the Respondent, four of which were related to psychiatric injuries. They were all dismissed by the Court on the basis that there was no “accident”.
1. Dispute with colleague incident
Mr Chan recorded his telephone conversation with a colleague, without their knowledge, after she defaulted in supervising a student activity. Mr Chan alleged that she was intimidating, pranking and threatening to kill him, causing him psychiatric injuries.
Court: After careful consideration of the transcript and the context of the conversation, the Court considered the colleague was merely apologising and trying to explain to Mr Chan that she was not pranking or trying to cause him any harm. There was no act of intimidation. On the contrary, the fact that Mr Chan recorded the conversation (without his colleague’s knowledge) suggested that Mr Chan clearly anticipated or led the conversation. There was nothing “inappropriate or sudden” in the conversation.
2. Media exposure incident
Mr Chan’s other Labour Tribunal proceedings against the Respondent were reported by the media. Mr Chan alleged that he felt enormous pressure as he was mocked by students about it, causing damage to his image and dignity.
Court: Mr Chan agreed that the proceedings can be searched by the media and public. The Court considered it was not unexpected that the press may report on the proceedings, and therefore there was no accident.
3. Late to class incident
After missing a class, Mr Chan alleged that his co-workers deliberately delayed in reminding him about the class. He also alleged that his phone was malfunctioning. Mr Chan alleged he felt stressed by the incidents and was of the view that the Respondent tried to blame him for technical issues of the phone, clearly pinpointing him.
Court: As the discussions between the Respondent and Mr Chan were routine administrative matters, there was nothing “sudden, inappropriate or unfortunate” in the way the Respondent handled the situation.
4. Computer password incident
Both the Respondent’s Principal and teacher offered to assist Mr Chan in changing his computer password. Mr Chan alleged the Respondent’s Principal and teacher had shouted at him, which he alleged had caused him to be frightened and stressed, as it affected his public image.
Court: Accepted the Respondent’s evidence that the Principal and teacher did not shout at Mr Chan or spoke to Mr Chan in an inappropriate manner.
Implications
While Mr Chan’s claims have all been dismissed, the Court has indicated that workplace conversations may amount to an “accident” if delivered in an inappropriate, untoward, sudden or unfortunate way. Polite, professional and documented handling of unwelcome news are crucial in defending claims under the ECO.
Hong Kong