Seafarer seeks judicial review after being denied MPF protection

Lam Kwai-wing, a seaman with a shipping company for ten years, was dismissed last year and had about HK$80,000 in provident fund contributions clawed back by his former employer. The MPFA told him that under the Merchant Shipping (Seamen) Ordinance, seamen are not covered by the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance. Lam believes the decision breaches the Basic Law and has applied to the High Court for a judicial review to overturn it.

What happened?

Lam had worked for Shun Tak-China Travel Ship Management since 2000. When the company switched banks handling staff provident funds in 2009, he was classified as an “exempt” employee under the seamen’s ordinance and joined a voluntary retirement plan that December; the account then showed employer contributions of about HK$81,000.

Why were the contributions clawed back?

After Lam was dismissed last April, the company reclaimed the provident fund contributions. The MPFA replied to his complaint last November that the MPF ordinance does not apply to seamen employed on ships, so the company was entitled to take the money back.

What’s his legal argument?

As a Hong Kong permanent resident, Lam argues the constitution gives him the right to retirement benefits, yet the seamen’s ordinance offers seamen no retirement protection and no reasonable explanation. He is seeking the review under the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights.

Learn about employees’ MPF rights at the MPF education hub.