By Felix Kong｜Licensed Insurance Agent
Looper Insurance Agency Limited (GA1034)
Published: 2026-08-31｜Last updated: 2026-08-31
On 10 July 2026 the Labour and Welfare Bureau tabled a paper at the Legislative Council Panel on Manpower proposing a work injury compensation mechanism for digital platform workers, starting with food and goods delivery. Note what that is: a legislative proposal, not law in force. For most Hong Kong employers the real exposure sits in an ordinance decades old. Under section 40 of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282) every employer must take out employees' compensation insurance, whatever the contract length or hours and whether the worker is full or part time, and failure to insure carries a fine of up to HKD 100,000 and two years' imprisonment. So the question that matters is narrower: you call the person a freelancer and you signed a self-employment contract, but in law, is that person genuinely self-employed?
Table of Contents
What is actually being proposed
Why it reaches you if you are not a platform
Employee or self-employed: control, not labels
Five scenarios
What the Ordinance asks after the policy is bought
Covering the genuinely self-employed
FAQ
1. What is actually being proposed
The paper proposes defining "platform company" and "platform worker" and giving platform workers in food or goods delivery statutory protection for injury or death arising from an accident while performing platform work. Protection would run from the moment the worker begins travelling to the designated collection point until the item is delivered. Where the worker is serving more than one platform at the time, the platforms involved would share the liability.
In an earlier written reply the government confirmed the framework will be drawn up with reference to the Employees' Compensation Ordinance, and made a point easy to miss: the relationship between platform companies and platform workers is not readily defined as an ordinary employment relationship. That is why platforms need a separate statute. The way your own company engages people has always been handled by Cap. 282 and the status test the courts apply.
Proposed platform regime | Employees' Compensation Ordinance | |
|---|---|---|
Status today | Legislative proposal, not yet law | In force, compulsory |
Who is covered | Food and goods delivery platform workers first | Full and part time employees under a contract of service or apprenticeship |
Who carries it | The platform company; platforms share where the worker is on several at once | The employer; construction also engages principal contractor liability |
Compulsory insurance | Proposed, detail awaits the bill | Section 40, fine up to HKD 100,000 and two years' imprisonment |
Reporting | Proposed 14 days for injury, 7 for death | Section 15: 14 days for injury, 7 for death |
The row to read is "status today". The platform mechanism is still a proposal and nobody can bring a claim under it. Cap. 282 has been in force for decades and can be used against you today. Timing your employees' compensation housekeeping to a bill not yet introduced gets the sequence backwards.
2. Why it reaches you if you are not a platform
Coverage of this story is all about delivery riders, and the conclusion most owners draw is that it has nothing to do with them. It does, because platform legislation changes nothing about what Cap. 282 asks of you.
The Ordinance applies to all full time or part time employees engaged under a contract of service or apprenticeship. Only three categories fall outside it: persons whose employment is of a casual nature, outworkers, and members of the employer's family living with the employer unless the policy expressly includes them. The first category carries an exception that gets overlooked: a casual worker employed for the purposes of the employer's own trade or business remains inside the Ordinance.
The practical meaning of that exception: a design studio taking on a casual designer, a renovation firm putting a casual tradesman on site, a logistics operator using a temporary driver. Even on a three day engagement, none drops out of the Ordinance simply because the work was casual. What genuinely falls outside is incidental work unconnected with your trade. Deciding whether to insure on the basis of "he was only here three days" starts from the wrong question.
3. Employee or self-employed: control, not labels
The Labour Department's position is unambiguous: no single factor distinguishes an employee from a self-employed person or contractor. All relevant factors must be weighed, with no fixed rule on the weight of any one. Nine common important factors are published.
Common important factor (Labour Department) | The question to ask in practice |
|---|---|
Control over the procedures, timing and manner of the work | Who sets the roster? Who decides the process? |
Ownership and provision of tools and materials | Who supplies the computer, vehicle, materials? |
Whether the person runs a business and bears investment and management responsibility | Any operating costs of their own? |
Whether reasonably regarded as part of your organisation | Company email, business card, job title? |
Whether the person may hire helpers | Can they send a substitute? |
Bearing the financial risk of the business | Who absorbs the loss on a bad job? |
Responsibility for insurance and tax | Who arranges it? |
Traditional structure and practice of the trade | How does this trade normally operate? |
Any other factor the court considers relevant | Decided on the facts |
The Labour Department states the consequence plainly: where an employment relationship substantively exists, then even if the contract calls the worker self-employed, the employer must still discharge its obligations under the labour legislation, pay the statutory entitlements owed to the falsely labelled worker retrospectively, and may face criminal liability for breach of the relevant provisions.
Three cases cited by the Labour Department show how this works. In FACV14/2006 an air conditioning technician was injured installing a unit and the company refused compensation on the basis that he was self-employed. The Court of Final Appeal held he was an employee: the business belonged to the company, he bore no financial risk, he was paid a daily rate, and most tools were supplied by the company. His self-employed declaration for MPF purposes did not displace the objective picture. In HCLA43/2015 a salon assistant clocked in and out, could not hire a helper and carried no financial risk. The court held he was an employee and put the point directly: even where the parties signed a written agreement describing him as self-employed and no MPF was arranged, if the objective circumstances show an employment relationship, the agreement cannot override it. In HCLA16/2019 a maintenance worker on a monthly wage whose daily work the company directed was likewise an employee.
4. Five scenarios
Scenario | Usual leaning | What to do |
|---|---|---|
Design studio engages a freelancer at home on their own machine, quoting per project, serving several clients | Leans self-employed | Keep quotations and invoices; reassess if they start sitting in your office to a roster |
Renovation firm takes on a casual tradesman; you set the roster, supply materials, pay daily | Leans employee | Insure; where work is sub-let, deal with section 24 |
Logistics operator uses a temporary driver on your vehicle and route | Leans employee | Insure; check the authorised driver clause on the motor policy |
Event company hires part time crew you supervise on site, paid daily | Leans employee | Insure and confirm casual staff are covered; venues usually require public liability |
Tutoring centre engages part time tutors; you set the timetable, supply materials, teach on your premises | Leans employee | Insure; student exposure sits with public liability |
The table shows direction, not outcome. The safest rule: if you cannot answer "is this person genuinely self-employed", treat them as an employee and insure. Premium is rated on estimated annual earnings and adjusted at expiry, so declaring one extra casual hand is not the same order of magnitude as one claim in which an employment relationship is found.
5. What the Ordinance asks after the policy is bought
Item | Statutory requirement | Provision |
|---|---|---|
Compulsory insurance | Every employer must insure, whatever the contract length or hours, full or part time | Section 40 |
Minimum sum insured (any one event) | Up to 200 employees: not less than HKD 100,000,000. Over 200: not less than HKD 200,000,000 | Section 40 |
Penalty for failing to insure | Fine up to HKD 100,000 and two years' imprisonment, plus a surcharge to the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board | Section 40; Cap. 365 section 36A |
Reporting | Injury within 14 days to the Commissioner for Labour, fatality within 7; late or false reporting fined up to HKD 50,000 | Section 15 |
Periodical payments | Four fifths of the difference between monthly earnings before and during temporary incapacity | Section 10 |
Sub-letting | The principal contractor pays compensation to an injured sub-contractor's employee and may recover it | Section 24 |
Two points. First, the Ordinance itself states that the statutory minimum sum insured does not represent the limit of the liability a person may bear in law, including at common law: "insured to the statutory minimum" and "adequately insured" are different propositions. Second, section 24 is the sub-letting trap. If the sub-contractor's worker is injured and the sub-contractor has no valid cover, the principal contractor pays first and recovers afterwards. Collecting that policy before work starts is a firebreak, not paperwork.
6. Covering the genuinely self-employed
Suppose you work through the factors and the person really is self-employed. A second problem opens up. The Labour Department puts it bluntly: employees' compensation insurance applies only to employees, and a self-employed person or contractor should consider personal accident insurance with an adequate sum insured. If a genuinely self-employed freelancer is hurt on your project, your policy does not respond and the person has no statutory protection either. The law arranges nothing for them, but your contract can.
Three routes, none of which replaces another. First, require the contractor to carry their own personal accident cover and hand you a copy before work starts; a verbal assurance is worth nothing at claim stage. Second, arrange group personal accident cover for short term hands. Such plans can usually be written on an unnamed basis and rated on headcount, which suits teams with high turnover, but they are not statutory employees' compensation and can only supplement it. Third, injury to customers or damage to a venue belongs to public liability.
When we check arrangements of this kind for SMEs, three findings recur: the covered categories on the employees' compensation policy do not extend to part time and casual staff, the freelancer's personal accident policy expired partway through the project, and the company signed a venue contract with no public liability at all. None of the three is visible in the premium figure.
FAQ
Q: Has the platform worker injury legislation been passed?
A: No. What the Labour and Welfare Bureau put to the Legislative Council Panel on Manpower on 10 July 2026 was a legislative proposal, focused first on food and goods delivery. If you are not a platform company it does not change your obligations. What applies now is the Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282).
Q: The contract says "self-employed". Does that mean no employees' compensation policy is needed?
A: No. The Labour Department states that where an employment relationship substantively exists, the employer must still discharge its labour law obligations even if the contract describes the worker as self-employed, and may face criminal liability. In HCLA43/2015 the parties had signed such an agreement and made no MPF arrangements; the court still held he was an employee.
Q: I am hiring a casual hand for three days. Do I really need cover?
A: Very probably. Section 40 requires every employer to insure, whatever the contract length or hours and whether the worker is full time, part time, permanent or casual. The Ordinance excludes casual employment, but a casual worker engaged for the purposes of the employer's own trade or business is an express exception and remains covered.
Q: The person has a business registration or a limited company. Does that settle it?
A: Not by itself. Business registration is one factor among many and the courts weigh all nine together. In FACV14/2006 the worker had declared himself self-employed for MPF purposes and the Court of Final Appeal still found the objective facts amply supported an employment relationship.
Q: I sub-let the whole job. Am I exposed if the sub-contractor's workers are hurt?
A: Possibly. Section 24 makes the principal contractor liable to pay compensation to an injured employee of a sub-contractor, with a right to recover afterwards. Collect the sub-contractor's policy before work starts and check the period and number of employees covered.
Next step
You cannot control how the platform bill progresses. You can control two things: which category the people on your books fall into, and who your employees' compensation policy really covers. Send us the policy and schedule, your freelancer contract template and your staffing plan for the next quarter, and we will check the covered categories, the earnings declaration basis and the sub-letting arrangements.
Related Articles
A Customer's Dog Bit Our Waiter: A Real Hong Kong Employees' Compensation Claim
From Subdivided Flat to Basic Housing Unit: Three Policies to Settle Before the Works Start
It Was Not Your Dog. You Can Still Be Liable: Occupiers' Liability for HK Restaurants
Public Liability Insurance in Hong Kong: An English Guide for Businesses and Owners
Free Quote
Looper Insurance Agency Limited (GA1034) offers a free policy check and quotations for Employees' Compensation, Group Personal Accident and Public Liability cover.
Tel: 2633 6813
Email: cs@looperin.com
Website: www.looperin.com
Disclaimer: This article is for reference only and does not constitute insurance or legal advice. The platform worker measures described are legislative proposals and are not yet law; the bill as introduced and the latest government announcements prevail. Actual coverage is subject to policy terms and conditions. For legal advice, consult a solicitor.
免責聲明：本文僅供參考，不構成保險或法律建議。文中平台工作者內容屬政府立法建議，未成為法例。實際保障範圍以保單條款為準。
Conclusion
A contract that calls someone self-employed does not settle it. Courts look at who sets the roster and who carries the financial risk if the job goes wrong, not what the paperwork says. Get that call wrong and you find out only when a casual hand is hurt and the policy does not cover them. Talk to us about checking who your employees' compensation policy actually covers.
Felix Kong
CEO
繼續閱讀
