Seafarer’s MPF challenge fails: judicial review refused

Lam Kwai-wing, a seafarer formerly employed by Shun Tak-China Travel Shipping, lost HK$82,000 in employer contributions from the company’s voluntary retirement scheme after his dismissal in April 2010. Arguing his industry fell outside MPF protection, he sought judicial review. The High Court’s Justice Lam Man-han refused leave, finding the case had no merit.

Why aren’t seafarers covered by MPF?

The industry is excluded from the Employment Ordinance and the MPF Ordinance. After dismissal, the employer reclaimed its MPF contributions under the original contract, and Lam had no recourse. The judge held that Shun Tak’s self-established retirement scheme was a private contract between the parties — the MPFA had no power to intervene or order repayment.

What happens after the ruling?

Lam called the ruling unfair, saying Hong Kong law offered seafarers no protection, and would consider appealing. He had already moved to another shipping firm with better retirement benefits. Case no.: HCAL66/11.

The case exposed gaps in MPF coverage: not every worker is protected by the system. Employees in special industries should proactively understand their retirement arrangements. For the relevant rules, see the MPF education hub.