公众关注的法援案件-法律援助署.pdfVIP

公眾關注的法援案件 Cases of Public Interest or Concern Legal Aid Department Annual Report 2007 35 法律援助署2007年報 第 三 章 公 眾 關 注 的 法 援 案 件 Chapter 3 Cases of Public Interest or Concern 重複的問題︰是分判商還是 A Sub-contractor or an Employee? A 僱員 Question Revisited 終審法院在二○○七年三月作出一項判 In a judgment handed down in March 2007, the Court of 決，該判決再次確認樞密院在Lee Ting Final Appeal (“CFA”) re-affirmed the fundamental test Sang v Chung Chi Keung [1990] 2 AC for determining whether an employer and employee 374一案中，為確定僱主與僱員關係是 relationship existed as laid down in the Privy Council’s 否存在所採用的基本驗證方法。要確定 decision in Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi Keung [1990] 2 AC 某人是僱員還是獨立承判商，基本的驗 374 . The fundamental test in determining whether a person 證方法是，該人履行服務時，是否為自 was an employee or an independent contractor is whether 己經營的業務提供有關服務。這是一個 or not that person was performing services as a person in 關乎事實的問題，須由主審法官在研究 business on his own account. It is a question of fact for 及衡量該人工作時的實際情況後作出裁 the trial judge to decide following an investigation and 決。 evaluation of the factual circumstances in which that person performed his work. 法院又裁定，一九九八年實施的《強制 It was also held that the introduction of the Mandatory 性公積金計劃條例》（第485章）不影 Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance, Cap. 485 (“MPFSO”) in 響上述基本原則。 1998 does not