LOK MING RESTAURANT v. LAU KWAI CHONG AND ANOTHER

LOK MING RESTAURANT v. LAU KWAI CHONG AND ANOTHER

Section 14 governs conciliation by an authorised officer and does not prevent an adjudication officer, who is a judicial officer, from approving a voluntary, lawful, capacity-valid and fair settlement and making it an award; the adjudication officer did not act improperly or coerce the employer; representation by a non-lawyer authorised representative may be permitted with the Board's leave and s22 is not to be read as an exhaustive exclusion.

Citation
LOK MING RESTAURANT v. LAU KWAI CHONG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Lok Ming Restaurant; 1st Respondent/claimant: Lau Kwai Chong; 2nd Respondent/claimant: Lau Wai Tung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 February 2000
Case Number
HCME7/1999
Procedural Posture
Minor Employment Claims Appeal (appeal From Mecab) / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal to Court of First Instance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conciliation and Settlement Under MECAB, Powers and Role of Adjudication Officers, Right of Audience/representation Before MECAB, Costs Awards, Judicial Status and Capacity of Tribunal Officers
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Conciliation and Settlement Under MECAB Powers and Role of Adjudication Officers Right of Audience/representation Before MECAB Costs Awards +1 more

Case Brief

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lok Ming Restaurant

Appellant/defendant

Lau Kwai Chong

1st Respondent/claimant

Lau Wai Tung

2nd Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Minor Employment Claims Appeal (appeal From Mecab) / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal to Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 14 MECAB procedures for conciliation apply to settlements approved by an adjudication officer
  2. 2 Whether an adjudication officer acted improperly or coerced a party into settlement
  3. 3 Whether a non-lawyer third party (Mr Ma) may represent an employer before an adjudication officer under section 22

Ratio Decidendi

Section 14 governs conciliation by an authorised officer and does not prevent an adjudication officer, who is a judicial officer, from approving a voluntary, lawful, capacity-valid and fair settlement and making it an award; the adjudication officer did not act improperly or coerce the employer; representation by a non-lawyer authorised representative may be permitted with the Board's leave and s22 is not to be read as an exhaustive exclusion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • No order against the appellant in respect of the appeal except that costs of the adjournment are awarded.