KOON KWAI HUNG AND OTHERS v. UNION CONTRACTORS LTD AND ANOTHER

KOON KWAI HUNG AND OTHERS v. UNION CONTRACTORS LTD AND ANOTHER

The Presiding Officer did not err in law by not taking the alleged Defence into consideration because there was no evidence that the document was authorised by the company or that any representative had authority to file it, and the qualified duty to investigate under s20(3) does not compel exhaustive inquiry into...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
KOON KWAI HUNG AND OTHERS v. UNION CONTRACTORS LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Claimant: 1st Claimant; Claimant: 2nd Claimant; Claimant: 3rd Claimant; Claimant: 4th Claimant; Claimant: 5th Claimant; Defendant: 1st Defendant; Defendant: Developing Engineering Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 August 2007
Case Number
HCLA27/2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Labour Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Section 21 a Applications, Service of Process, Authority to Represent Corporate Defendant, Duty to Investigate Under S20(3), Costs
Source Language
et
Labour Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Section 21 a Applications Service of Process Authority to Represent Corporate Defendant Duty to Investigate Under S20(3) Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

1st Claimant

Claimant

2nd Claimant

Claimant

3rd Claimant

Claimant

4th Claimant

Claimant

5th Claimant

Claimant

1st Defendant

Defendant

Developing Engineering Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Labour Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Presiding Officer erred in failing to consider the alleged Defence document not shown to be authorised by the company
  2. 2 Whether the duty to investigate under section 20(3) required the Presiding Officer to probe the merits of the claim or unauthorised documents at an interlocutory section 21A hearing
  3. 3 Whether failure of service at the companys registered office justified setting aside the award under section 21A

Ratio Decidendi

The Presiding Officer did not err in law by not taking the alleged Defence into consideration because there was no evidence that the document was authorised by the company or that any representative had authority to file it, and the qualified duty to investigate under s20(3) does not compel exhaustive inquiry into unauthorised papers at an interlocutory section 21A hearing; additionally the ground based on non‑service at the registered office was legally insufficient because service to the place of business is proper under s13(2)(b)(iia).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • The 2nd defendant to pay the 3rd claimant's costs of the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed.