TSO CHUN CHEONG v. MAK CHI MING t/a LIK WANG INTERNATIONAL SOFA CO

TSO CHUN CHEONG v. MAK CHI MING t/a LIK WANG INTERNATIONAL SOFA CO

Because a binding Certificate of Assessment under Section 16A(5) existed and no application under Section 16A(8) had been made nor any appeal lodged, Section 18A deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to entertain the Applicant's claim for assessment; the application must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Citation
TSO CHUN CHEONG v. MAK CHI MING t/a LIK WANG INTERNATIONAL SOFA CO
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 March 2007
Case Number
DCEC873/2006
Procedural Posture
Assessment of Compensation Under Employees' Compensation Ordinance / Assessment Hearing; Application Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to filing a fresh application under Section 16A(8) of the Ordinance
Legal Topics
Employees' Compensation, Certificate of Assessment, Jurisdiction, Section 16 A(8), Section 18 a
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Employees' Compensation Certificate of Assessment Jurisdiction Section 16 A(8) Section 18 a

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Assessment of Compensation Under Employees' Compensation Ordinance / Assessment Hearing; Application Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Court has jurisdiction to assess compensation when a Certificate of Assessment under Section 16A(5) exists
  2. 2 Whether an application under Section 16A(8) is a prerequisite for the District Court to make an Order in accordance with a binding Certificate of Assessment
  3. 3 Interplay between Section 16A(8) and Section 18A of the Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

Because a binding Certificate of Assessment under Section 16A(5) existed and no application under Section 16A(8) had been made nor any appeal lodged, Section 18A deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to entertain the Applicant's claim for assessment; the application must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to filing a fresh application under Section 16A(8) of the Ordinance

Orders

  • Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to Applicant filing a fresh application under Section 16A(8) of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance
  • Applicant's own costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations