SRI WAHYUNI 對 林銳生

SRI WAHYUNI 對 林銳生

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant raised only factual disputes about credibility and authenticity of recordings without adducing substantive evidence of fabrication or any arguable legal error; the arbitrator's evaluation of witness testimony and recordings was a permissible exercise of fact-finding and not susceptible to appellate intervention under Cap.453 s31(1).

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 3184
Parties
Claimant: SRI WAHYUNI; Applicant/defendant: LAM Yui-sang
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 October 2022
Case Number
HCME3/2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Small Claims/small Employment Claims Arbitration / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Sexual Harassment, Admissibility and Authenticity of Recordings, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
CH
Employment Law Civil Procedure Evidence Constructive Dismissal Sexual Harassment Admissibility and Authenticity of Recordings 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SRI WAHYUNI

Claimant

LAM Yui-sang

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Small Claims/small Employment Claims Arbitration / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was constructively dismissed by sexual harassment
  2. 2 Whether the covert audio recordings were authentic or fabricated
  3. 3 Whether the issues raised are questions of law as required for leave to appeal under Cap.453 s31(1)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant raised only factual disputes about credibility and authenticity of recordings without adducing substantive evidence of fabrication or any arguable legal error; the arbitrator's evaluation of witness testimony and recordings was a permissible exercise of fact-finding and not susceptible to appellate intervention under Cap.453 s31(1).

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal refused
  • No order as to costs