UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AGENCY (HK) LTD v. CHIK CHI LUN AND ANOTHER

UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AGENCY (HK) LTD v. CHIK CHI LUN AND ANOTHER

The Court held that the Plaintiff's claims (rebate paid of $126,900, incurred sum of $60,000 and costs to be taxed) are claims for sums of money arising from breach of terms of the employment contracts; such claims fall within paragraph 1(a) of the Schedule to the Labour Tribunal Ordinance and therefore fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal; accordingly the District Court lacked jurisdiction and the Plaintiff's claim against the 1st Defendant was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Citation
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AGENCY (HK) LTD v. CHIK CHI LUN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (estate Agency): Plaintiff; 1st Defendant (former Employee): 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant (former Employee): 2nd Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 September 2008
Case Number
DCCJ99/2006
Procedural Posture
District Court Civil Action (employment/contract) / Jurisdiction Challenge Under Labour Tribunal Ordinance (order 18, Rule 19 Application)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim against the 1st Defendant dismissed for want of jurisdiction; matter falls within Labour Tribunal exclusive jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Exclusive Jurisdiction, Labour Tribunal Jurisdiction, Breach of Employment Contract, Interpretation of 'sum of Money', Costs and Indemnity
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Exclusive Jurisdiction Labour Tribunal Jurisdiction Breach of Employment Contract Interpretation of 'sum of Money' Costs and Indemnity

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 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff (estate Agency)

1st Defendant

1st Defendant (former Employee)

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant (former Employee)

Procedural Posture

District Court Civil Action (employment/contract) / Jurisdiction Challenge Under Labour Tribunal Ordinance (order 18, Rule 19 Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal under s.7 and the Schedule (para 1(a))
  2. 2 Whether the claims constitute 'a sum of money' arising from breach of a term of a contract of employment
  3. 3 Whether the District Court has jurisdiction to hear the claims

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Plaintiff's claims (rebate paid of $126,900, incurred sum of $60,000 and costs to be taxed) are claims for sums of money arising from breach of terms of the employment contracts; such claims fall within paragraph 1(a) of the Schedule to the Labour Tribunal Ordinance and therefore fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal; accordingly the District Court lacked jurisdiction and the Plaintiff's claim against the 1st Defendant was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim against the 1st Defendant dismissed for want of jurisdiction; matter falls within Labour Tribunal exclusive jurisdiction

Orders

  • Dismissal of Plaintiff's claim against the 1st Defendant for want of jurisdiction in the District Court
  • Order nisi: Plaintiff to pay costs of this action to the 1st Defendant, to be taxed if not agreed, to be made absolute within 14 days (no certificate for Counsel)