Ending a Foreign Domestic Helper Contract Early in Hong Kong

Last updated: 14 September 2026 / 最後更新：2026年9月14日

When a foreign domestic helper (FDH) contract ends early, employment and immigration rules operate at the same time. Four deadlines matter most.

Sources: Labour Department FDH FAQs and Immigration Department form ID 407E .

>

Clause 10 of the Standard Employment Contract (ID 407) allows either the employer or helper to terminate by giving one month's written notice or one month's payment in lieu of notice. The contents, final working day and delivery date may become evidential issues; a clear letter, messages and acknowledgement can prove them. Labour Department practical guide for FDHs

How is payment in lieu calculated?

The contract fixes a one-month notice period. The amount of payment in lieu is calculated under the Employment Ordinance's average-wage rules. Where notice is expressed in months, the general formula is:

If the employee has worked for less than 12 months, the shorter actual period is used. Periods and wages specified by the Ordinance are excluded. If wages vary or include commissions or allowances, the latest basic monthly wage alone may not be the correct figure. Labour Department termination FAQ and calculation tables

This site's summary: clause 10 itself names an amount — one month's wages in lieu of notice — and the Employment Ordinance supplies a separate average-wage method of calculation. Where the two produce different figures, which governs depends on the particular contract and facts. Whether a cash food allowance, bonus or other payment is “wages” may depend on the facts; the Labour Department or a lawyer can help resolve that question.

What a court has said about payment in lieu. Law Ting Pong Secondary School v Chen Wai Wah, [2021] HKCA 873 (CACV 517/2019, Court of Appeal, 11 June 2021), at paragraph 74:

Outcome: the appeal was allowed and judgment restored against the employee. At paragraph 86(3):

Paragraph 86(4) made an order nisi that he also pay the costs of the appeal, summarily assessed at $70,000. The party who lost was the employee.

What it does not decide: it is not an FDH case; the notice period there was three months where ID 407 clause 10 gives one; and the three means of termination described are that contract's own Termination Provision, not Cap. 57.

Can the contract end immediately without payment in lieu?

Yes, but only in circumstances recognised by the Employment Ordinance — and clause 11 of ID 407 requires such a termination to be made in writing. Summary dismissal by an employer and immediate termination by an employee involve different provisions. One of the employee's grounds, section 10(a), carries a limit in its own words:

This site's summary: the ground does not reach every danger, but a danger the contract did not contemplate expressly or by necessary implication. Misusing immediate termination can lead to claims for wages, payment in lieu or unlawful dismissal. Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57)

Potentially payable items include:

• outstanding wages;
• payment in lieu if the notice period was not worked;
• pay for untaken annual leave; and, for a helper with three but less than 12 months' service in a leave year, pro-rata annual-leave pay (Immigration Department FDH FAQ Q47);
• long service payment or severance payment if the qualifying conditions are met (the same service generally does not attract both);
• return passage to the helper's place of origin;
• food and travelling allowance for the return journey of HK$100 per day — this is a term of the Standard Employment Contract, ID 407 clause 7(b), not guidance; the clause makes it payable where the travelling is by the most direct route, and the form contains no indexation mechanism; and
• any other amount due under the contract or Employment Ordinance.

Labour Department FDH FAQs on payments at termination

The seven-day rule and the severance exception

Except for severance payment, termination payments are generally due within seven days after the contract ends (section 25(1)). The section that creates the offence is section 63C:

This site's summary: the penalty reaches sections 23, 24 and 25 — the timing of wages and of termination payments. Some official FAQs attach the same figures to underpayment of wages; both are citing this one provision. That is a maximum, not the outcome of every late-payment case.

Severance follows a different timetable. Under section 31N of the Employment Ordinance an employee is not entitled to a severance payment unless, before the end of three months beginning with the relevant date (a term defined in section 2, and not simply the date of dismissal or expiry), one of three things has happened: (a) the payment has been agreed and paid; (b) the employee has made a claim by notice in writing to the employer; or (c) the question of entitlement or amount has been made the subject of a claim filed with the Registrar of the Minor Employment Claims Adjudication Board or the Registrar of the Labour Tribunal. The Commissioner for Labour may also agree an extended period. An employee who filed at the Labour Tribunal but sent no letter has therefore not lost the claim. Under section 31O(1) the employer must pay no later than 2 months from the receipt of a notice in accordance with paragraph (b) of section 31N — unless, before that period expires, either party has made the severance payment the subject of a claim filed with the Registrar of the Minor Employment Claims Adjudication Board or the Registrar of the Labour Tribunal. This site's summary: the two-month clock is not unconditional; a filed claim displaces it.

The offence for late severance is different from section 63C, and far smaller. Section 31O(3)(a):

This site's summary: a fine at level 5 is HK$50,000 and carries no imprisonment; the HK$350,000 and three years under section 63C do not carry across to severance. Labour Department severance FAQ

For eligibility and calculations, see the guide to severance and long service payment .

The continuous-contract test changed in 2026

Some statutory rights depend on employment under a “continuous contract.” Two dates are relevant to this change. The new text of the First Schedule to the Employment Ordinance operates from 28 December 2025 (the Ordinance's editorial note: "Operation date: 28 December 2025"). The Labour Department's Continuous Contract page states the requirement as "applicable from 18 January 2026". The first is the date the provision operates from; the second is the date the Labour Department gives for its application.

The new test is employment for four weeks with at least 17 hours worked in each week; where a week falls short, an alternative 68-hour test may apply, and paragraph 2A(2) of the First Schedule contains a transitional arrangement. A full-time live-in FDH will ordinarily satisfy the test, but the actual hours and records remain relevant. Labour Department Continuous Contract Education Tool

The current minimum is not the answer to every calculation

The power that moves this figure: the Minimum Allowable Wage is not moved by Gazette notice or by any legislative step, but by an annual Government announcement, and for the past ten years that announcement has fallen in the last week of September. The Government announced on 29 September 2025 that, for Standard Employment Contracts signed on or after 30 September 2025, the Minimum Allowable Wage is HK$5,100 per month, and that where the employer does not provide free food the food allowance is at least HK$1,236 per month. Those figures are stated as at 14 September 2026; the next announcement is expected in the last week of September 2026, and readers should check the latest announcement. An existing contract's wage does not automatically change solely because a later level is announced. This site's summary: termination payments use the actual contractual wage and the applicable statutory formula, not automatically the latest minimum. Government announcement

The ordinary termination rule does not displace protected-period rules. This site's summary of section 33(4B): where sickness allowance is payable for a sickness day, the employer shall not terminate the contract on that day otherwise than in accordance with section 9 — so the exception is not confined to serious misconduct. Section 9(1) is wider than that. Among its grounds an employee who:

This site's summary: section 9(1) also reaches wilful disobedience of a lawful and reasonable order, misconduct inconsistent with the due and faithful discharge of duties, fraud or dishonesty, and any other ground on which the employer would be entitled to terminate without notice at common law. A dismissal for habitual neglect is not made unlawful by the fact that only serious misconduct was mentioned. Paid sickness allowance usually requires at least four consecutive sickness days and the other statutory conditions. There is an express exception for absence connected with a pregnancy examination, post-confinement medical treatment or miscarriage: each qualifying day may count as a paid sickness day if the remaining conditions are met, and a pregnancy examination may also be supported by a certificate of attendance. Labour Department sickness-allowance FAQ

Three things follow from a contravention, and without them the protection has no content. Section 33(4BB):

and is, in the section's next words, liable on conviction to:

Section 33(4BA) adds the civil consequence. The employer must pay the dismissed employee:

by the employer under section 7, and in addition:

earned over the 12 months before termination, or the shorter period of employment. Section 33(4BAA) then places the burden on the employer: an employer who terminates on such a sickness day is taken to have terminated otherwise than in accordance with section 9 unless the contrary is proved.

This site's summary: a fine at level 6 is HK$100,000. Separate restrictions may apply to a pregnant employee, an employee receiving employees' compensation periodical payments, or certain trade-union activity. Sickness absence lasting fewer than four days does not by itself establish that dismissal is lawful. The protected status, reason for termination and evidence all matter.

Both employer and helper must notify the Director of Immigration within seven days after termination. The current ID 407E instructions are explicit: they may use the same notification form or separate forms. The current form lists online upload, fax and post as submission methods. The form and instructions in force determine the required steps; the submission record can prove when and how notice was given. Immigration Department ID 407E page

This site's summary: the duty in clause 12 of ID 407 has two parts — each party must give the Director written notice, and must also forward a copy of the other party's written acknowledgement of the termination. The second part depends on cooperation from the other side, at the very moment cooperation has usually broken down. ID 407E permits separate filing and Immigration can identify any missing information, but that does not make one party's compliance wholly independent of the other's.

This notification duty does not turn every employment term into a criminal condition of stay. This site's summary: clause 4(c) of ID 407 is worded as an acknowledgement by both parties that clauses 4(a) and (b) will form part of the conditions of stay imposed by the Immigration Department — the power to impose conditions of stay lies with the Director under section 11(2) of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115); the clause is not itself the source of that power. The same clause then states that a breach of one or both of those conditions of stay will render the helper and/or any aider and abettor liable to criminal prosecution. Wage, termination-payment, notification and employer-undertaking duties have distinct legal bases and consequences. Immigration Department explanation of the Standard Employment Contract

Note (ii) of the current ID 407E states that the employee has to leave Hong Kong within 14 days from the date of termination of contract or before the expiry of the limit of stay, whichever is earlier. The Labour Department FDH FAQ (Q26) puts the same arrangement as "generally speaking … within 2 weeks after termination". The two describe the same period, but the word "generally" is the source's own: this is the ordinary position under immigration policy, and the operative deadline remains the individual condition of stay. The actual e-Visa or condition of stay controls; the unexpired part of the employment contract does not replace it. Immigration Department FDH service page

What happens on overstaying: the Labour Department FDH FAQ (Q26) states that an FDH who does not leave Hong Kong on or before the expiry of stay commits an offence for breaching the conditions of stay and is liable to prosecution; on conviction, a maximum fine of HK$50,000 and up to two years' imprisonment, removal from Hong Kong after serving the sentence, and no further permission to come to Hong Kong to work as an FDH. Labour Department FDH FAQs

The 14 days do not automatically confer permission to work for a new employer. The Government describes their purpose as preparation for departure, and the helper must not undertake paid or unpaid work without permission.

Why losing the job and losing the home happen on the same day. The helper must live in her employer's residence, and that requirement was upheld on appeal. Lubiano Nancy Almorin v Director of Immigration, [2020] HKCA 782 (CACV 112/2018, Court of Appeal, 21 September 2020). At paragraph 22 the Court set out how the requirement arises in law:

The same paragraph records that as between employer and helper the live-in requirement is a matter of contract; as between the helper and the Director it is an undertaking given in her visa application, forming part of the eligibility criteria for the exercise of the Director's discretion; and that in substance it remains a requirement imposed for immigration control under the Immigration Ordinance.

Outcome: the appeal was dismissed, and costs went against the applicant. At paragraph 147:

What it does not decide: nothing about termination, notice, the two-week rule, or any individual's right to remain. This site's reading: it explains why she must live in — which is why, in Hong Kong, a departure deadline measured in weeks is a housing problem as well as an immigration one.

Can a helper with a labour or monetary dispute extend their stay?

Immigration may, having regard to the individual circumstances, grant an extension as a visitor so a helper can deal with a labour or monetary dispute or assist an investigation. This is discretionary, evidence is required, and visitor status does not permit work. Government written reply of 26 March 2025

Immigration normally does not approve a change of employer during the two-year contract. Official materials give examples of exceptional circumstances, including the original employer's overseas transfer, migration, death or financial inability to continue the contract, and evidence that the helper was abused or exploited. This is not a closed list or an automatic entitlement; Immigration decides each case on its facts. Immigration Department guide ID 911A, Q13

The route the official materials give is to leave and apply from home. Immigration Department guidebook ID 911A, answer to Q13, states that a helper who wishes to take up employment with a new employer must return to her place of origin and apply for the appropriate visa directly to the Director of Immigration, either by post or through the new employer. This site's summary: on a 14-day departure clock that is the difference between acting correctly and overstaying — filing a new application, receiving a visitor extension and receiving permission to work are three different events.

Records relevant to both parties

• Written notice can establish the termination method, notice date and final working day.
• ID 407, the e-Visa, wage and leave records, notices, receipts and communications can establish contractual and payment facts.
• Each party has a seven-day written-notice duty and must also forward a copy of the other party's written acknowledgement (ID 407 clause 12); ID 407E permits a joint or separate submission.
• The actual limit of stay and 14-day rule jointly determine the departure date; any extension requires a separate discretionary application.

Employer-side account items

• Payment in lieu is calculated using the statutory average-wage formula.
• An itemised account and accurate receipt can prove payment; a receipt does not lawfully exclude statutory rights.
• Payment is generally due within seven days (section 25(1); the offence is section 63C), except that qualifying severance claimed in writing is due within two months after receipt of the notice (section 31O(1)) — a period displaced by a claim filed before it expires.
• The Standard Employment Contract also deals with return passage and the journey food/travelling allowance.

Helper-side entitlement questions

• Wages, leave, payment in lieu, long service payment and severance have different qualifying conditions and calculations.
• A written record can identify a disputed amount; pursuing payment does not itself permit overstaying.
• A change of employer, a stay extension and permission to work are distinct immigration decisions; visitor status does not confer work permission.

The six decisions below are all in English. Several of them ended badly for the helper; they are set out alongside the rest so the full range of outcomes is visible.

One the employer won: whether the day of termination was a sickness day

Temporosa, Ma. Carla Arangote (executrix of the estate of Guting, Joan Sarmiento, deceased) v Choy Chiu Yee Rita, [2024] HKDC 747 (DCEO 13/2019 and DCCJ 3408/2020, consolidated; District Court; 8 July 2024). The claimant is not the helper but the executrix of her estate — the helper died in the Philippines on 18 August 2018. At paragraph 180:

Outcome: the employer won outright. At paragraph 189:

Both consolidated actions were dismissed, with an order nisi that there be no order as to costs.

What it does not decide: these were claims under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance (Cap. 487); the "s 11" and "s 6" construed in that judgment are Cap. 487 sections, not the identically numbered sections of Cap. 57.

One where the helper recovered money and the employer's appeal failed

Voahanginiaina Aimee Chantal v Leung Man Kai, HCLA 27/2016 (Court of First Instance, 23 June 2017, on appeal from Labour Tribunal Claim No 163 of 2016; no neutral citation). The helper claimed HK$37,781.17 under six heads. At paragraph 5:

The Tribunal allowed heads (C), (D) and (F), totalling HK$30,365.39, plus interest and costs. So the air ticket was one of the heads actually awarded — and her own claim for wages in lieu of notice was dismissed.

Outcome: the employer's appeal was dismissed. At paragraph 88:

What it does not decide: it is about deductions made without the Commissioner's approval, not about the 14-day departure deadline.

One the helper won and then lost

Wai Mei Lai Stella v Viya Pramita, HCLA 3/2010 (Court of First Instance, 28 June 2011, on appeal from Labour Tribunal case LBTC 5227/2009; no neutral citation). The Labour Tribunal had found for the helper:

Outcome: the employer's appeal succeeded and that sum was taken away.

The Presiding Officer had accepted two explanations never put to the employer in cross-examination and never raised at the hearing.

What it does not decide: a remittal decides nothing on the merits.

One that decided liability and awarded nothing

Waliyah v Yip Hoi Sun Terence and Chan Man Hong, DCEO 1/2015 and DCCJ 1041/2015 (District Court, 19 January 2017). The employer terminated on a month's notice and then required the helper to move out before the notice period expired. At paragraph 33(2):

Outcome: liability only, and no figure. At paragraph 35:

Costs were reserved. The judgment decided liability only; the amount was left for a later assessment.

This site's reading: releasing the helper from her duties during the notice period and releasing her from the accommodation are two different things.

Two assessments of damages on judgments entered in default

Neither document is a trial judgment on liability, and that has to be said each time either is mentioned.

Pereira, Mary Ann Allas v Jamil Bushra, [2026] HKDC 1148 (DCEO 11/2020, District Court, damages assessed 3 July 2026). At paragraph 3:

She was also absent from the assessment hearing. Because the respondent took no part, the court's decision was not made after hearing both sides.

The court awarded under three heads: loss of income HK$33,367, injury to feelings HK$120,000, and medical expenses HK$98,286. On the medical head, at paragraph 37:

That sum is a difference, not a bill. The three heads total HK$251,653. Costs were awarded to the claimant as "special circumstances" under section 73C(3)(b) of the District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336).

Erwiana Sulistyaningsih v Law Wan Tung, DCPI 569/2015 (District Court, damages assessed 21 December 2017; no neutral citation). The employer maltreated the helper during the employment and was convicted in February 2015, receiving six years' imprisonment and a fine. In the civil action:

What it does not decide: nothing about lawful termination, notice, the Standard Employment Contract or immigration — that contract was not terminated by notice at all. It is a tort measure reached in a personal-injuries action, and must never be presented as a contractual or Employment Ordinance entitlement.

The eight decisions and what happened to a party

⚠ marks an assessment of damages on an interlocutory judgment entered in default, where liability was never adjudicated.

This site's reading: four of the eight ended against the employed party (Guting, Wai Mei Lai, Lubiano, Law Ting Pong), a fifth (Waliyah) has produced no sum at all to date, and in Voahanginiaina the helper's own payment-in-lieu claim was dismissed. These outcomes are not predictable from the facts; each turned on its own evidence and on the Ordinance under which it was brought.

Can a WhatsApp message count as one month's notice?

The contract requires written notice. An electronic message may create a written record, but proof of content, identity and delivery remains fact-sensitive. A clear termination letter with evidence of receipt is better evidence of those matters.

Must every termination payment be made within seven days?

No. Except for severance, termination payments are generally due within seven days. Qualifying severance claimed in writing is due within two months after the employer receives the claim.

Must employer and helper submit two ID 407E forms?

No. Both have a notification obligation, but the current form permits one jointly completed form or separate submissions.

Is the helper always allowed to remain for 14 days?

No. Departure must be within 14 days after termination or before the actual limit of stay expires, whichever is earlier.

Does a Labour Tribunal case let the helper remain until it finishes?

Not automatically. A visitor extension may be requested from Immigration, but approval is discretionary and does not permit work.

• Dismissal protections: Unreasonable vs unlawful dismissal
• Severance, long service payment and the post-offset calculation: Severance and long service payment and MPF offset calculation
• Claims procedure: Labour Tribunal guide

HKGoodLawyer describes its public service as legal-document explanation and referral to Hong Kong lawyers. Document explanation is not individual legal advice, and a referral does not guarantee that a lawyer will accept instructions or that any outcome will follow. An independent Hong Kong lawyer can assess rights against the actual contract and records.

• Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57) (consolidated version: 14 May 2026): ss.9, 10, 25, 31N, 31O, 33, 63C and the First Schedule
• Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115) (version dated 24 August 2025): s.11(2)
• Labour Department: FDH FAQs
• Labour Department: Practical Guide for FDHs
• Labour Department: Termination of Employment Contract FAQ
• Labour Department: Sickness Allowance FAQ
• Labour Department: Severance Payment FAQ
• Labour Department: Continuous Contract Education Tool
• Immigration Department: Notification of Termination of an Employment Contract with an FDH (ID 407E)
• Immigration Department: FDH service page
• Immigration Department: Guidebook ID 911A
• Government: FDH policy and stay arrangements, 26 March 2025
• Government: Minimum Allowable Wage and food allowance, 29 September 2025

• Pereira, Mary Ann Allas v Jamil Bushra, [2026] HKDC 1148 (DCEO 11/2020, District Court, damages assessed 3 July 2026)
• Temporosa (executrix of Guting) v Choy Chiu Yee Rita, [2024] HKDC 747 (DCEO 13/2019 and DCCJ 3408/2020, District Court, 8 July 2024)
• Voahanginiaina Aimee Chantal v Leung Man Kai, HCLA 27/2016 (Court of First Instance, 23 June 2017)
• Waliyah v Yip Hoi Sun Terence and Chan Man Hong, DCEO 1/2015 and DCCJ 1041/2015 (District Court, 19 January 2017)
• Lubiano Nancy Almorin v Director of Immigration, [2020] HKCA 782 (CACV 112/2018, Court of Appeal, 21 September 2020)
• Wai Mei Lai Stella v Viya Pramita, HCLA 3/2010 (Court of First Instance, 28 June 2011)
• Erwiana Sulistyaningsih v Law Wan Tung, DCPI 569/2015 (District Court, damages assessed 21 December 2017)
• Law Ting Pong Secondary School v Chen Wai Wah, [2021] HKCA 873 (CACV 517/2019, Court of Appeal, 11 June 2021)