徐偉金 對 宏丰鏟車及另一人

徐偉金 對 宏丰鏟車及另一人

The court adjourned the applicant's claim against the first respondent to permit the applicant to obtain accurate company name and address, and dismissed the claim against the second respondent (law firm) because there was no factual basis that the firm was the employer or acted for the company and service on the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKDC 1572
Parties
Applicant: 徐偉金; First Respondent: 宏丰鏟車; Second Respondent: 曾陳律師行
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 October 2019
Case Number
DCEC965/2019
Procedural Posture
Employee Compensation Claim / Interlocutory Hearing on Service and Strike Out Applications
Outcome
Application against second respondent dismissed; application against first respondent adjourned pending applicant obtaining correct details of the company.
Legal Topics
Service of Documents, Party Identification, Strike Out for Lack of Factual Basis, Adjournment for Discovery of Defendant Details
Source Language
ch
Employment/workers' Compensation Civil Procedure Service of Process Service of Documents Party Identification Strike Out for Lack of Factual Basis Adjournment for Discovery of Defendant Details

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

徐偉金

Applicant

宏丰鏟車

First Respondent

曾陳律師行

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employee Compensation Claim / Interlocutory Hearing on Service and Strike Out Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service on the law firm constituted proper service on the company employer
  2. 2 Whether there was any factual basis to sustain a claim against the law firm
  3. 3 Whether the court should adjourn the claim to allow the applicant to obtain correct defendant details or dismiss the claim against the law firm

Ratio Decidendi

The court adjourned the applicant's claim against the first respondent to permit the applicant to obtain accurate company name and address, and dismissed the claim against the second respondent (law firm) because there was no factual basis that the firm was the employer or acted for the company and service on the firm was improper; no costs order was made against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application against second respondent dismissed; application against first respondent adjourned pending applicant obtaining correct details of the company.

Orders

  • Adjourn the application against the first respondent (date to be fixed) to allow the applicant time to ascertain and provide the correct company name and address
  • Dismiss the application against the second respondent (曾陳律師行) for lack of any factual basis