Recent ruling raises urgent questions about legal protection for helper employers in HK
影響所有香港外傭僱主的判決
一宗历时两年的小额钱债审裁处案件，让外佣雇主看清一个残酷的法律现实：
two-year Small Claims Tribunal case reveals a BRUTAL legal reality that every FDH employer must confront:
聘請外傭時，中介可以作出誇大、失實，甚至擔保式陳述以誘使雇主簽約，只要「把人弄來香港」，便被視為法律上已完成合約。
外傭抵港後，即使嚴重「貨不對版」，中介無需承擔任何法定責任；即使中介作出反咬或報復行為，均被視為法律上無關。
在此框架下，雇主一旦簽約，便無任何可自保的法律依據。如若透過小額法庭尋求金錢申索，注定被駁回，並須承擔中介的出庭費用。
換句話說：法律規定，雇主必須為一項有失誤的服務付費；如果雇主試圖為此尋求補救，則將付出第二次代價。
這種法律理解，實際上已成為處理類似糾紛的預設裁判方向，並持續影響大量家庭。
When hiring a domestic helper, an agency can exaggerate or make assurances to secure signing. Once the helper arrives in Hong Kong, the agency is treated in law as having completed its role.
If the helper’s background later proves materially different from what was represented, that mismatch carries no legal consequence for the agency, nor does any retaliatory or adverse conduct toward the employer.
As a result, once the contract is signed, the employer has no legal basis for self-protection. Any monetary claim brought before the Small Claims Tribunal is effectively bound to fail, with costs borne by the employer.
This legal interpretation has, in practice, become the default legal position for all similar disputes — affecting thousands of families.
這不是一宗個別中介糾紛，而關於：香港法律是否為外傭僱主提供任何保障?
Wonder Act 呼籲全港外傭僱主聯署支持，促請高等法院審視相關法律適用，釐清僱主的法律處境。
這並非為了推翻某個結果，而是為了確立將影響所有未來案件的法律原則。
如果這個問題關乎您、您的家庭，或任何僱用外傭的人，現在，就是表態支持高等法院審視的時刻。
This is not about one employer’s dispute.
It is about whether Hong Kong law offers any effective protection to helper employers at all.
Wonder Act is a collective call for the High Court to review whether the law has been correctly applied — and whether the current system leaves employers legally exposed.
This is not about overturning one outcome, but clarifying the legal rules that will govern all future cases.
If this issue affects you, your family, or anyone who employs a domestic helper, now is the moment to stand up in support of a High Court review.
已有425人聯署支持釐清僱主的法律保障
425 people have signed to support legal clarity for FDH employers
*The Sign-up Counter is updated once daily and reflects valid submission records. 簽名人數每日更新一次，數據來自有效簽名紀錄
感谢你對此上訴的關注
Thank you for supporting this appeal for high court review
這並非一宗突如其來、偏離常態的裁決；相反，它反映的是小額錢債審裁處一貫採用的法律理解 — 一套持續運作，並已影響全港約十分之一家庭的制度性風險。
This was not an exceptional ruling. Rather, it reflects a legal interpretation consistently adopted by the Small Claims Tribunal — one that has continued to operate and now poses a systemic risk affecting approximately one in ten Hong Kong households.
這種尚未經上級法院審視的法律理解，在實際運作中，帶來了三項清晰而具體的結構性後果：
In practice, this legal interpretation gives rise to three clear and concrete structural consequences:
1️⃣ 法律救濟形同虛設
Legal remedies become illusory
當法院認為：
合約未明確寫明的責任即不存在；
監管守則與牌照條件不具法律約束力；
口頭承諾無法舉證即視為沒有發生；
那麼在現實中，即使僱主身處明顯資訊不對等的處境，並只能依賴中介的陳述作出決定，在法律上亦可能完全失去任何可行的追索或補救途徑。
法律在形式上承認追索與救濟的權利，卻未提供任何可被實際行使的法律路徑。
Where the court takes the view that:
responsibilities not expressly stated in a contract do not exist；
regulatory codes and licensing conditions carry no legal force；and
any assurances or representations that cannot be formally proven are treated as if they were never made.
employers may, in reality, be left without any viable avenue for redress — even where they face clear information asymmetry and are compelled to rely on representations made by intermediaries.
Legal rights to pursue claims or remedies may exist, but no practical legal pathway is provided for those rights to be exercised.
2️⃣ 風險被制度性地轉嫁至家庭
Risk is structurally shifted to families
在此法律解釋下：
服務提供者可促成關鍵決定，卻無須承擔後果；
中介在促成決定時所作的陳述，以及其後對家庭造成的實質損害，均可在法律上被忽略。
這是一種結構性的風險分配失衡——決策影響力與法律責任被切割，而後果卻集中落在資訊與談判能力較弱的一方。
Under this interpretation:
service providers may induce decisive actions without bearing consequences; and
once risk materialises, losses are borne entirely by families.
This represents a structural imbalance in risk allocation — where decision-making influence is separated from legal responsibility, and consequences are concentrated on the party with weaker information and bargaining power.
3️⃣ 錯誤激勵被制度化
Perverse incentives are institutionalised
當制度容許服務提供方：
拒絕合理協商；
不處理實質問題；
將消費者逼入唯一可行的法律申索途徑；
卻仍然可能將出庭成本轉嫁給尋求裁斷的一方，那麼制度本身便開始扭曲行為誘因。拒絕解決問題的一方更具優勢；而試圖透過法律尋求裁斷的一方，卻更為卻步。
Where the system permits service providers to:
refuse reasonable engagement;
decline to address substantive problems; and
force consumers into the only viable legal forum,
yet still allows litigation costs to be shifted onto the party seeking adjudication, the incentive structure itself becomes distorted.
Those who refuse to resolve disputes are placed at an advantage, while those who seek legal determination are deterred.
當裁決結果可以塑造制度下的行為模式，並影響法律制度的可及性與公平性，便有必要透過上訴交由高等法院，檢視相關法律適用是否妥當，並為未來類似案件建立清晰而一致的裁判方向。
When the outcome of a ruling begins to shape behaviour across the system and affect the accessibility and fairness of the legal process, judicial scrutiny becomes necessary.
For this reason, it is appropriate that the issue be brought before the High Court through the appeal process — to examine whether the law has been properly applied, and to provide clear and consistent guidance for future cases.
正因如此，這個問題值得被公開討論、被認真對待—— 因為若未被正視，下一次承擔同樣制度風險的，可能是任何一個家庭。
This is why the issue deserves public attention and serious consideration.
If left unexamined, the next family exposed to the same systemic risk may be any one of us.
这份聯署，並非源自於假設或抽象討論。
一宗涉及懷孕雇主於外傭仲介失職的案件，正進入公共利益上訴高等法院程序。歷時兩年的審裁，最終判決揭露現行製度的嚴重問題： 外傭中介可以在零風險下作出任何推介，不需為其說法與行為負責，而雇主家庭在法律上幾乎不受保護，並需獨自承擔所有實際與金錢上的損失。
若此裁決不被挑戰，將使對外傭僱主極不利的法律訊號被默許並複製，其影響不止於單一案件，而會波及更多家庭，成為市民生活中的常態風險。
This petition does not arise from theory or abstract debate.
It arises from a case involving a pregnant employer and a domestic helper agency’s failed FDH placement. Now this case has entered a public-interest appeal before the High Court. After two years of tribunal proceedings, the final ruling exposes a serious flaw in the current system:
FDH Agencies may make representations at zero risk, without any accountability, while FDH employers are left with little legal protection and must bear the full practical and financial loss alone.
If this ruling is left unchallenged, it permits a legal signal deeply unfavourable to FDH employers to stand and be replicated. Its impact extends far beyond a single case and could become a routine risk in everyday family life.