LAM TUNG HEI v. BRIGHT CHARTER (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

LAM TUNG HEI v. BRIGHT CHARTER (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

The Presiding Officer was entitled to find that Mr Kwan had authority to represent and to settle for both defendants based on representation and conduct at hearings; a settlement recorded by the Tribunal is not invalidated by lack of separate Form 10 compliance; no arguable error of law or injustice was shown and therefore leave to appeal is refused.

Citation
LAM TUNG HEI v. BRIGHT CHARTER (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Claimant: Lam Tung Hei; 1st Defendant: Bright Charter (Hong Kong) Limited; 2nd Defendant: Sun Tung Lok Carterers (Management & Consultant) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 June 2004
Case Number
HCLA149/2003
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (decision)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreements, Authority of Representative, Review Applications, Stay of Execution, Interpretation of Statutory Form (form 10)
Source Language
EN
Labour Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Settlement Agreements Authority of Representative Review Applications Stay of Execution Interpretation of Statutory Form (form 10)

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

Parties

Lam Tung Hei

Claimant

Bright Charter (Hong Kong) Limited

1st Defendant

Sun Tung Lok Carterers (Management & Consultant) Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Presiding Officer erred in finding that the representative had authority to enter into the settlement agreement
  2. 2 Whether a settlement is invalid for lack of written authorization by the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the Presiding Officer was obliged to hold a hearing for a second review application or to grant a stay of execution

Ratio Decidendi

The Presiding Officer was entitled to find that Mr Kwan had authority to represent and to settle for both defendants based on representation and conduct at hearings; a settlement recorded by the Tribunal is not invalidated by lack of separate Form 10 compliance; no arguable error of law or injustice was shown and therefore leave to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal dismissed