Our Founding Partner Mr. Peter Sit and Senior Partner Mr. Joseph Wong were honoured to be invited to attend the inauguration ceremony of the Hong Kong Shunde Science and Technology Innovation Liaison Office (Talent Liaison Station).
Led the Foshan Shunde District Science and Technology Bureau, the Liaison Office serves as a bridgehead connecting Shunde with Hong Kong's technology and talent resources. Its key functions include linking science and technology parks, universities, and research institutions in Hong Kong, facilitating the implementation and commercialisation of Hong Kong technological innovations in Shunde industries; attracting high-level talent, young innovators in science and technology, and cutting-edge projects; and to supporting Shunde enterprises seeking Hong Kong listings, fostering connections with the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and venture capital funds to meet financing needs.
Following the inauguration ceremony, our representatives joined government officials and other distinguished guests in discussions on talent recruitment and cooperation initiatives.
We are deeply grateful to the Hong Kong Shunde Science and Technology Innovation Liaison Office (Talent Liaison Station) for this valuable opportunity. supporting deeper collaboration between Shunde and Hong Kong in advancing science and technology innovation and promoting cross-border commercial development.
Our Trainee Solicitor Christy Hui’s article, “Arbitration at the Edge of Insolvency: Hong Kong Offshore Strategy after Guy Lam, Sian and Hyalroute”, has been published in the January 2026 issue of Asian Dispute Review.
Focusing on structures in which an immediate holding company is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) or the Cayman Islands, this article highlights how variances in approaches to insolvency are no longer merely theoretical but central to strategies for enforcing arbitration clauses. It focuses on how, over the past two years, courts in Hong Kong, the BVI and the Cayman Islands have adopted diverging approaches to arbitration clauses in cases in which creditors seek to wind up debtor companies.
As helpfully compared by Christy, in Hong Kong, arbitration clauses remain a robust shield against liquidation, whereas in the BVI and Cayman Islands, arbitration clauses offer less protection. This asymmetry encourages forum selection by creditors at the debtor’s jurisdiction of incorporation. Hong Kong and BVI/Cayman Islands courts are now apparently moving in divergent trajectories in reconciling arbitration agreements with insolvency remedies. The key insight is not simply that Hong Kong courts are ‘pro-arbitration’ and offshore courts are ‘pro insolvency’. Rather, arbitration clauses now operate as asymmetric tools that may shift bargaining power.
SFKS practices a wide range of dispute resolution, and advises on the drafting and application of arbitration clauses. SFKS also has a vibrant insolvency related legal practice, with abundant exposure to multinational corporations and listed companies with offshore corporate vehicles in different stages of their business cycle.
Our Partner Mathew Liu recently conducted an engaging full-day training session on fundamental legal concepts related to the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57) for officers of the Labour Department of the Government of Hong Kong.
Understanding Employment Law: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach
Employment law is a vital cross-disciplinary field that integrates principles of contract, tort, statutory protections, and criminal liabilities. The workplace can be a complex and dynamic environment prone to disputes. Therefore, it is crucial for frontline officers, whether from the government, corporate entities, statutory bodies, public institutions, or NGOs, to possess a solid foundation in legal knowledge. This understanding is essential for navigating the legal system in Hong Kong and for applying relevant legislations and legal principles effectively in their everyday roles.
Tailor-Made Legal Services for Employers and Employees
SFKS offers comprehensive and customized legal services to corporate employers, particularly in the realm of human resources management, dispute resolution and insolvency. Additionally, we provide expert advice to employees regarding their rights and obligations during employment and beyond.
By equipping Labour Department officers with essential legal concepts, we aim to foster a better understanding of employment law, ensuring that both employers and employees can effectively manage their rights and responsibilities in the workplace.
Hong Kong’s new 417/468 Continuous Contract Test
1. Introduction
As Hong Kong’s workforce returns from the Lunar New Year break, it is worth noting a key change to Hong Kong’s employment regime that came into force on 18 January 2026. The Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57) (EO) has adopted a new 417/468 continuous contract test (417/468 Rule), which makes it easier for more part-time and irregular-hours workers to qualify for EO benefits.
In substance, “continuous contract” remains the threshold for key statutory entitlements such as sickness allowance, maternity and paternity leave, severance payments, and statutory holiday pay. What has changed is the hours test used to establish that status.
From 18 January 2026, a contract is treated as “continuous” if an employee has been employed by the same employer for four or more consecutive weeks and each of those weeks meets the prescribed hours test (Qualifying Week). A week is a Qualifying Week if the employee either:
(i) works at least 17 hours in that week; or
(ii) works at least 68 hours in total across that week and the immediately preceding three weeks (a rolling four-week total), provided the employment spans the entire period (Second Limb).
It should be noted that the amendment is not retrospective. For an employment period before 18 January 2026, the old requirement continues to apply. Other EO qualifying periods (for example, three months for statutory holiday pay and 12 months for paid annual leave) are not altered by this amendment.
2. Work patterns matter more under 417/468 Rule
Under the old 418 rule, the analysis was linear: four consecutive weeks, each requiring at least 18 hours of work. If the hours in any week fell below 18, continuity was broken and the clock reset.
The updated test makes the distribution of hours across weeks more significant because it looks at a rolling four-week window, and a shorter week will not necessarily break continuity if the preceding weeks bring the total up to the statutory threshold.
The Second Limb of the 417/468 Rule does not apply during the first three weeks of employment, as there is no preceding three-week period of employment for any of those weeks, and such a period is required for any of them to qualify as a Qualifying Week. This means that during the first three weeks of a new employment, the employee must work for at least 17 hours each week to establish a continuous contract.
To illustrate:
Example 1
Week 1: 20 hours
Week 2: 18 hours
Week 3: 17 hours
Week 4: 13 hours
Total (Weeks 1–4): 68 hours
Continuous contract
In example 1, only Week 4 is under 17 hours, but the four-week total reaches 68. Under the 417/468 Rule, each week is a Qualifying Week and therefore the employee is under a continuous contract. Under the old 418 Rule, Week 4 would have broken continuity.
Example 2
Week 1: 17 hours
Week 2: 17 hours
Week 3: 17 hours
Week 4: 13 hours
Total (Weeks 1–4): 64 hours
No continuous contract
By way of contrast, in example 2, Week 4 is under 17 hours and the four-week total is below 68. Under the 417/468 Rule, Week 4 is not a Qualifying Week and therefore the employee is not under a continuous contract.
Example 3
Week 1: 13 hours
Week 2: 19 hours
Week 3: 17 hours
Week 4: 16 hours
Week 5: 16 hours
Total (Weeks 2–5): 68 hours
No continuous contract
In example 3, both Weeks 4 and 5 fall below 17 hours. Although the four-week total for Weeks 2 to 5 reaches 68, the Second Limb of the 417/468 Rule operates only to make Week 5 (but not each week within that four-week period) a Qualifying Week. Since the four-week total for Weeks 1 to 4 is under 68, Week 4 is not a Qualifying Week and continuity is broken.
Example 4 (new employment)
Week 1: 35 hours
Week 2: 17 hours
Week 3: 16 hours
Week 4: 16 hours
Total (Weeks 1–4): 84 hours
No continuous contract
In example 4, both Weeks 3 and 4 are under 17 hours. Week 4 is a Qualifying Week as the four-week total reaches 68. However, the Second Limb of the 417/468 Rule does not apply to the first 3 weeks of new employment. Consequently, even though the total working hours for the first 3 weeks already reach 68, Week 3 cannot be “saved” by this rolling total provision. Therefore, Week 3 is not a Qualifying Week and has broken continuity.
Nothing in the EO prohibits flexible rostering. Adjusting hours to reflect genuine operational needs remains permissible. From a compliance and administration perspective, the key is that timekeeping and rostering records should be sufficiently clear to support accurate calculation of hours under the 417/468 Rule so that continuous contract status can be assessed consistently.
3. Legal context
Although the 417/468 Rule is new, it operates within existing EO framework and the established principles in case law on continuous contracts and work arrangements. The following points remain important under the new rule.
Statutory onus
Once the hours requirement in the First Schedule of the EO is satisfied, the contract is treated as continuous for EO purposes and the statutory benefits follow. S.3(2) of the EO expressly provides that, in any dispute as to whether a contract is a “continuous contract”, the onus of proving that it is not continuous rests on the employer. This makes clear and contemporaneous records of hours worked especially important, particularly where weekly hours and rolling four-week totals may need to be verified.
Labels are not determinative
Consistent with the statutory framework, the courts give limited weight to labels such as “casual”, “contract worker” or “self-employed”, and instead focus on substance of the relationship, including mutual obligations, control, integration, economic dependence, regularity of work and whether the individual is in business on his or her own account (see Poon Chau Nam v Yim Siu Cheung (2005) and Wong Man Kwan and Others v Chun Shing Holdings Ltd (2003))
Gaps and fixed term arrangements
Where engagement is structured through successive fixed-term contracts, short gaps in between fixed term contracts can interrupt continuity, even if the work appears continuous (see Wong Man Sum v Wonderland Sea Food Restaurant (2007)).
Taken together, possible disputes under the new 417/468 Rule remain familiar:
4. Practical points for employers
To maintain compliance under the new test, employers are recommended to regularly:
(a) Review standard employment contracts, staff handbooks and HR policies to ensure that references to “continuous contract” and qualifying hours reflect the 417/468 thresholds.
(b) Identify part-time, casual and irregular-hours roles, particularly those averaging around 15–19 hours per week or 60–72 hours per four-week period, and recognize that many of these workers may now fall within continuous contract protection. This is particularly relevant in sectors such as retail, construction and creative industries, where irregular hours are common.
(c) Ensure timekeeping practices and payroll records are maintained in a way that reliably reflect accurate calculation of hours worked and reduce reliance on informal or ad hoc tracking outside the timekeeping system.
(d) Brief line managers responsible for scheduling rosters to be informed about the new 417/468 Rule and ensure they understand schedules should be driven by operational needs.
5. Conclusion
The 417/468 Rule does not rewrite the law on continuous contracts but changes who is more likely to qualify and recognizes fluctuating patterns over a rolling four-week window.
For employers, the priority is consistency between operational needs, work patterns and documentation. For employees, the new test makes it easier for variable schedules to still amount to continuous employment. As case law develops under the new test, the focus is likely to be less on the formula itself and more on how the work relationship operate in practice.
This article is co-authored by our Partner Joseph Wong and our Trainee Solicitor Christy Hui.
Disclaimer : This material is provided for general information only. It does not constitute legal or other professional advice nor constitute any lawyer-client relationship between Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum and any user or browser. No liabilities are assumed arising from any reliance of information in this material.
Revisiting Service of Notice of Appeal in Hong Kong: From FNG v BCJ to RHC Order 65
In their article “Can Notices of Appeal be Served on Solicitors Acting in the Court Below?” published in the August 2021 issue of Hong Kong Lawyer¸ Henry Cheng and Jasper Wong of Denis Chang’s Chambers (“the learned authors”) have helpfully summarized the reasoning and implications of the decision of Court of Appeal in FNG v BCJ [2021] HKCA 160 which seems to have the effect that the solicitors on record for the respondent in the court below are not automatically be regarded as solicitors for the respondent in the appeal and hence an appellant would have to effect service of the Notice of Appeal on a respondent by another means if that respondent withholds instructions to his solicitors in the court below to accept service of the Notice of Appeal on his behalf.
In this article, we try to explore and analyze further whether it is indeed correct to say that service of a Notice of Appeal on the solicitors on record for the respondent in the court below could not be valid and good service.
Effect of RHC Order 65 Rule 5 overlooked?
It appears that from the judgment of FNG v BCJ [2021] HKCA 160 both the parties and the Court of Appeal have focused their consideration and analysis on the interpretation of Rules of the High Court (RHC) Order 67 Rule 1 but no mention was made in respect of RHC Order 65 Rule 5.
As pointed out by the learned authors, the provisions of RHC Order 65 Rule 5 regarding ordinary service applied to service of Notice of Appeal and the Court of Appeal’s decision in FNG v BCJ does not appear to have altered this position.
RHC Order 65 Rule 5(1)(a) stipulates that ordinary service “may be effected by leaving the document at the proper address of the person to be served”. RHC Order 65 Rule 5(2)(a) further states that “… the proper address of any person on whom a document is to be served in accordance with this rule shall be the address for service of that person, but if at the time when service is effected that person has no address for service his proper address for the purposes aforesaid shall be in any case, the business address of the solicitor (if any) who is acting for him in the proceedings in connection with which service of the document in question is to be effected.” (emphasis added)
Interpretation of “In Connection with”
It is interesting to note that the wordings of RHC Order 65 Rule 5(2)(a) treats that the business address of a solicitor acting for a party in the proceedings “in connection with” with the documents to be served is valid address for the purpose of ordinary address.
While the rule does not explain the meaning of “in connection with” and there appears to be no local authority expressly ruling on the phrase of this rule, the phrase “in connection with” has been interpreted with a wide meaning in Hong Kong legal practice in a number of cases such as paragraphs 35-36 in Xu Yi Hong (許毅紅) v Chen Ming Han (陳明翰) & Ors [2006] 4 HKC 633 and paragraphs 23-25 in Yingde Gases Investment Ltd (盈德氣體投資有限公司) v Shihlien China Holdings Co Ltd (實聯中國控股有限公司) [2014] HKCU 138.
The above authorities suggest that the phrase “in connection with” is inclusive of all matters that are not entirely unrelated to the underlying transaction or legal proceedings. Hence, the application of this phrase extends to a wide range of scenarios that maintain a factual or legal connection with the main proceedings or the transaction at hand.
Applying the above as well as the natural and ordinary meaning of the words and common sense, a Notice of Appeal is inevitably a document “in connection with” the proceedings of the court below. This is especially true regarding service of the Notice of Appeal when no new case number is yet to be assigned to the Notice of Appeal at the time of its service and the case number of the proceedings below will be the key reference is showing the connection of the matter to be appealed against.
Conclusion
Based on the above logic, it seems at least strongly arguable that Notices of Appeal can therefore be lawfully and effectively served on the solicitors acting for the respondent as long as the solicitors remain on the record for the respondent in the proceedings below.
With respect, the Court of Appeal seemed to understand that the practice of serving Notices of Appeal on the solicitors acting for the other party in the court below as a mere “common practice” but did not further consider whether such practice may actually have legal effect under RHC Order 65 Rule 5. The Court of Appeal also appeared to put much of the focus and emphasis on the fact that the same solicitors firm does not necessarily have instructions to act in the appeal and accept service. However, the absence of a solicitor’s authority to act does not necessarily render any service on the solicitors invalid. A common example is that service on a solicitor who has cease to act for a party remains good service unless and until the solicitors has withdrawn from the record by complying with the requirements under RHC Order 67 Rule 6(1).
In any case, it is clear that more time, costs, delay and uncertainties may incur and arise if Notices of Appeal cannot be conveniently served on the solicitors acting for the respondent in the proceedings. We share the learned authors’ concern that further guidance or clarification (be it by way of case authority, practice direction or guidance note) from the Court will be invaluable and hope that they will be forthcoming.
This article is co-authored by our Partner Sidney Ho and our Trainee Solicitor Viola Lee.
Disclaimer : This material is provided for general information only. It does not constitute legal or other professional advice nor constitute any lawyer-client relationship between Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum and any user or browser. No liabilities are assumed arising from any reliance of information in this material.
In the landscape of Hong Kong matrimonial law, most marriages end through divorce. However, a recent judgment in the District Court, DC v. AS [2026] HKFC 7 (FCMC 807/2022), provides a rare look into the law of nullity (annulment). While the case centred on the “wilful refusal to consummate” a marriage, the learned Judge’s remarks offer a stern warning to both litigants and solicitors regarding procedural discipline, the purpose of pleadings, and the responsible use of public funds.
The Case: A Short-Lived Union
The Petitioner (the Husband) sought to annul his 14-day marriage on the grounds of non-consummation. Despite a five-year pre-marital relationship, the Husband claimed that post-wedding intoxication and a subsequent breakdown in the relationship prevented the marriage from ever being legally consummated. The Wife argued that sexual intercourse had occurred on the morning after the wedding, but the Court ultimately found her testimony lacked the necessary particulars and credibility. However, the Husband’s legal victory was overshadowed by the Court’s scathing critique of how the case was conducted by both legal teams.
The Legal Ground: Wilful Refusal to Consummate
Under Section 20(2)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance (Cap. 179), a marriage is voidable if it has not been consummated due to the wilful refusal of the respondent. To succeed in such a petition, the court must be satisfied of three elements: -
The case hinged on a factual dispute regarding the morning of 7 March 2021, i.e. the day after the wedding. The Wife asserted that they had consummated the marriage that morning, but she provided these details only during oral testimony at trial. The Husband maintained that no sexual intercourse took place because he was suffering from a severe hangover, including stomach cramps and exhaustion from the wedding festivities.
His Honour Judge I. Wong found in favour of the Husband. The learned Judge noted that the Wife’s pleadings were “fatally brief” and lacked particulars. Furthermore, the Husband’s version – that he was physically unfit for intimacy due his condition – was deemed more credible. The Court also noted that pre-marital sex, which the parties did not dispute, does not legally constitute “consummation”.
A significant aspect of this case was the proposal to consummate. The Court held that a husband does not necessarily need to make a formal, verbal request for sex. By providing a matrimonial home and begging the Wife not to leave during their arguments, the Husband had made an implied proposal to live as a married couple, which inherently includes the intention to consummate.
Conversely, the Wife’s decision to move out after only 14-days marriage and her refusal to return was classified as a “wilful refusal” without just excuse. The Court noted that even in oral testimony, the Wife admitted that once she moved out, she had no intention of returning.
Pleadings: A Map, Not a Memoir
A critical takeaway from this judgment is the Court’s reminder that pleadings are intended to define the issues, not to blur them. His Honour Judge I. Wong described the parties’ pleadings as being in “hopeless shape” and “out of focus”. Instead of stating material facts, the legal representatives pleaded unnecessary evidence, lengthy submissions, and irrelevant history.
The Court emphasised the following expectations:
The judgment highlights that a solicitor’s role extends beyond acting as a mouthpiece for the client; they must also assist the court and act as professional gatekeepers. Solicitors have an essential duty to provide clear advice on: -
Legal Aid and the Responsibility to Public Funds
The Judge raised a significant point regarding Legal Aid. The Respondent contested the nullity petition using public funds. However, since the outcome would not change her financial rights, the learned Judge questioned the merit of the defense. The Court directed the judgment to the Director of Legal Aid, noting that solicitors assigned by the Legal Aid Department have a continuing duty to evaluate the merits of a case as it progresses to ensure public funds are used responsibly.
Conclusion: The Need for Litigation Discipline
This judgment serves as a reminder that family law proceedings require more than just a factual grievance; they require professional discipline. For litigants, the lesson is clear: the court expects a focused presentation of the legal issues. For solicitors, the duty is to manage client expectations, provide realistic advice on costs, and ensure that the court’s time – and public funds – are used with respect for procedural rules.
Disclaimer : This material is provided for general information only. It does not constitute legal or other professional advice nor constitute any lawyer-client relationship between Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum and any user or browser. No liabilities are assumed arising from any reliance of information in this material.
