YU YIU WING v. LEAD YOUNG LOGISTIC (GLOBAL) LTD AND OTHERS

YU YIU WING v. LEAD YOUNG LOGISTIC (GLOBAL) LTD AND OTHERS

The High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Labour Tribunal because the Presiding Officer, while finding Lap Tak a sham and identifying control by persons tied to D2, did not make sufficient or clear findings to establish an express or implied employment relationship between D2 (or D1/Liu) and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
YU YIU WING v. LEAD YOUNG LOGISTIC (GLOBAL) LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Claimant (respondent): Yu Yiu Wing; 1st Defendant: Lead Young Logistic (Global) Limited; 2nd Defendant (appellant): Chin Hua Express Company Limited; 3rd Defendant: Liu Wei; 4th Defendant: Luo Huiyun
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 October 2013
Case Number
HCLA20/2012
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal to High Court / Appeal Disposed — Allowed in Part and Remitted to Labour Tribunal for Re Hearing by a Different Presiding Officer
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to the Labour Tribunal for rehearing by a different Presiding Officer; costs in the cause of the re-hearing; order nisi to be made final after 21 days.
Legal Topics
Employment Relationship, Lifting Corporate Veil, Sham/facade, Implied Contract, Agency, Remittal for Re Hearing, Calculation of Statutory Payments
Source Language
en
Employment Law Company Law Agency Law Procedure — Appeals Labour Tribunal Jurisdiction Employment Relationship Lifting Corporate Veil Sham/facade +4 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yu Yiu Wing

Claimant (respondent)

Lead Young Logistic (Global) Limited

1st Defendant

Chin Hua Express Company Limited

2nd Defendant (appellant)

Liu Wei

3rd Defendant

Luo Huiyun

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal to High Court / Appeal Disposed — Allowed in Part and Remitted to Labour Tribunal for Re Hearing by a Different Presiding Officer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Lap Tak was a sham or façade
  2. 2 Whether existence of Lap Tak permitted avoidance of employer duties
  3. 3 Whether D1 or D2 controlled Lap Tak and whether the corporate veil could be lifted

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Labour Tribunal because the Presiding Officer, while finding Lap Tak a sham and identifying control by persons tied to D2, did not make sufficient or clear findings to establish an express or implied employment relationship between D2 (or D1/Liu) and Yu. The correct approach required consideration of whether an implied contract or agency relationship existed; absence of such findings made a rehearing necessary. The court also accepted the parties' agreement that the Tribunal’s arithmetic required correction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to the Labour Tribunal for rehearing by a different Presiding Officer; costs in the cause of the re-hearing; order nisi to be made final after 21 days.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part
  • Remit the case to the Labour Tribunal to be reheard by a different Presiding Officer