陳慶森及另一人 對 開心電話賓館有限公司及另一人

陳慶森及另一人 對 開心電話賓館有限公司及另一人

The judge found no legal error in the Labour Tribunal's reasoning and that the factual findings were plainly supported by the evidence; accordingly the application for leave to appeal failed to meet the statutory/established threshold and was dismissed.

Citation
陳慶森及另一人 對 開心電話賓館有限公司及另一人
Parties
Claimant (respondent): 陳慶森; Claimant (respondent): 謝權; Defendant (appellant): 開心電話賓館有限公司; Claimant (respondent): 陳富華; Claimant (respondent): 許景朝; Claimant (respondent): 林俊文; Claimant (respondent): 劉美美; Claimant (respondent): 羅鈺雄; Claimant (respondent): 梁業華; Claimant (respondent): 盧松青; Claimant (respondent): 覃家銘; Claimant (respondent): 譚錦胡; Claimant (respondent): 吳金花
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 December 2016
Case Number
HCLA32/2015
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employment Status, Wage Arrears, Statutory Holiday Pay, Bias and Procedural Fairness, Standard for Leave to Appeal
Source Language
CH
Employment Law Administrative Law Labour Tribunal Procedure Employment Status Wage Arrears Statutory Holiday Pay Bias and Procedural Fairness Standard for Leave to Appeal

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

陳慶森

Claimant (respondent)

謝權

Claimant (respondent)

開心電話賓館有限公司

Defendant (appellant)

陳富華

Claimant (respondent)

許景朝

Claimant (respondent)

林俊文

Claimant (respondent)

劉美美

Claimant (respondent)

羅鈺雄

Claimant (respondent)

梁業華

Claimant (respondent)

盧松青

Claimant (respondent)

覃家銘

Claimant (respondent)

譚錦胡

Claimant (respondent)

吳金花

Claimant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 開心電話賓館有限公司 was the employer of the claimants
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Tribunal committed legal error in finding employer-employee relationship
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator was biased or the proceedings unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found no legal error in the Labour Tribunal's reasoning and that the factual findings were plainly supported by the evidence; accordingly the application for leave to appeal failed to meet the statutory/established threshold and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs