CHAN YAT SAN v. FUTURE LUCKY (296) LTD

CHAN YAT SAN v. FUTURE LUCKY (296) LTD

Leave to appeal was granted because there were arguable grounds that the Presiding Officer inadequately investigated a material and disputed issue (control and freedom to accept work) by deciding the case in the Company's absence and may have relied on irrelevant materials, such that a fair and proper determination may not have been attainable.

Citation
CHAN YAT SAN v. FUTURE LUCKY (296) LTD
Parties
Claimant (respondent): Chan Yat San; Defendant (appellant): Future Lucky (296) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 January 2013
Case Number
HCLA18/2012
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal (court of First Instance) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Labour Tribunal Award; Leave Granted
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted.
Legal Topics
Employment Status (employee V Contractor), Fair Trial / Right to Call and Cross Examine Witnesses, Tribunal Inquisitorial Powers, Leave to Appeal Under Section 32, Proceeding in Absence Under Section 21
Source Language
EN
Employment Civil Procedure Administrative Law Employment Status (employee V Contractor) Fair Trial / Right to Call and Cross Examine Witnesses Tribunal Inquisitorial Powers Leave to Appeal Under Section 32 Proceeding in Absence Under Section 21

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

Parties

Chan Yat San

Claimant (respondent)

Future Lucky (296) Limited

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal (court of First Instance) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Labour Tribunal Award; Leave Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Tribunal erred in proceeding and making an award in the absence of the Company
  2. 2 Whether the Presiding Officer failed to investigate relevant evidence and thereby deprived the Company of a fair trial
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was an employee or an independent contractor

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted because there were arguable grounds that the Presiding Officer inadequately investigated a material and disputed issue (control and freedom to accept work) by deciding the case in the Company's absence and may have relied on irrelevant materials, such that a fair and proper determination may not have been attainable.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted to the defendant/appellant Future Lucky (296) Limited