OLIVER KATHERINE QUEBEC v. LUI CHAN YEUNG

OLIVER KATHERINE QUEBEC v. LUI CHAN YEUNG

Leave to appeal was refused because the Tribunal's decision rested on credibility and factual findings supported by evidence and inferences (pre-arranged meetings, written acknowledgements); those findings were not perverse nor against the weight of the evidence and the costs award did not demonstrate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
OLIVER KATHERINE QUEBEC v. LUI CHAN YEUNG
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Oliver Katherine Quebec; Defendant/respondent: Lui Chan Yeung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 January 2012
Case Number
HCLA26/2011
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal (court of First Instance) / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused in full
Legal Topics
Agency, Employment Ordinance S.26(2), Leave to Appeal, Perversity Standard, Costs Discretion, Credibility and Weight of Evidence
Source Language
en
Employment Law Civil Procedure Appeal/administrative Review Agency Employment Ordinance S.26(2) Leave to Appeal Perversity Standard Costs Discretion +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Oliver Katherine Quebec

Claimant/applicant

Lui Chan Yeung

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal (court of First Instance) / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal's finding that the agency was the claimant's duly appointed agent under s.26(2), Cap.57, involved an error of law or was a factual credibility finding
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal's factual findings were perverse or against the weight of evidence such that leave to appeal should be granted
  3. 3 Whether the costs award of HK$8,000 was excessive or the product of legal error

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Tribunal's decision rested on credibility and factual findings supported by evidence and inferences (pre-arranged meetings, written acknowledgements); those findings were not perverse nor against the weight of the evidence and the costs award did not demonstrate unreasonableness or legal error.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused in full

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against the Tribunal's decision refused
  • Leave to appeal against costs refused