李德強 v. 大家樂集團有限公司

李德強 v. 大家樂集團有限公司

The Court held that the Labour Tribunal had jurisdiction because the Claimant's claim could properly be treated as alleging breach of an implied term of the Employment Contract (the anti-avoidance implied term); accordingly leave to appeal was granted on multiple arguable points of law (Grounds 2–6, 8 limited and 9) for full ventilation at appeal. The trial judge's findings that dismissal was unreasonable and relevant to motive were properly linked to the contractual breach issue and did not render the Tribunal without jurisdiction.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 889
Parties
Claimant: Claimant; Defendant: Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 April 2018
Case Number
HCLA44/2017
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal / Employment Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of First Instance (leave Granted)
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted in respect of Grounds 2 to 6, Ground 8 (limited to specified questions) and Ground 9; leave refused in respect of other grounds
Legal Topics
Share Award Scheme, Implied Term (anti Avoidance), Forfeiture of Awards, Expert Determination Clause, Public Policy, Jurisdiction, Damages Quantification, Notice and Agreement to Scheme Rules
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Contract Law Labour Tribunal Jurisdiction Company/corporate Law Share Award Scheme Implied Term (anti Avoidance) Forfeiture of Awards Expert Determination Clause +4 more

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

Parties

Claimant

Claimant

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal / Employment Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of First Instance (leave Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the claim regarding Restricted Shares
  2. 2 Whether the Scheme formed part of the Employment Contract
  3. 3 Whether an anti-avoidance implied term should be implied into the Employment Contract

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Labour Tribunal had jurisdiction because the Claimant's claim could properly be treated as alleging breach of an implied term of the Employment Contract (the anti-avoidance implied term); accordingly leave to appeal was granted on multiple arguable points of law (Grounds 2–6, 8 limited and 9) for full ventilation at appeal. The trial judge's findings that dismissal was unreasonable and relevant to motive were properly linked to the contractual breach issue and did not render the Tribunal without jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted in respect of Grounds 2 to 6, Ground 8 (limited to specified questions) and Ground 9; leave refused in respect of other grounds

Orders

  • 80% of the Defendant's costs of this application to be in the cause of the appeal
  • The remaining 20% of costs to be attributed to the grounds on which leave was refused; no order in respect of two specified items