A Hong Kong District Court recently ruled that a former Deliveroo rider was an independent contractor, not an employee, in a case where the rider sought compensation for an injury sustained while working. The rider had argued that he was entitled to employees' compensation under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance (ECO), but Deliveroo contended that the rider was not an employee, citing the Supplier Agreement which clearly defined him as an independent contractor. The court examined several factors, including the degree of control Deliveroo had over the rider, the provision of equipment, and the rider's ability to delegate work or work for competitors. Ultimately, the court found that the rider had significant autonomy, used his own equipment, and bore financial risks, which indicated he was not an employee. Deliveroo’s provision of voluntary insurance and the terms of the Supplier Agreement further supported this conclusion.
The case highlights the complexities of classifying gig workers and emphasizes the importance for employers to clearly define worker relationships in contracts, especially in terms of control and financial risk. The ruling contrasts with an earlier decision in a different case (Zeek) where workers were classified as employees due to Zeek's greater control over them.
Read on: in English