陳富華及另十一人 對 開心電話賓館有限公司

陳富華及另十一人 對 開心電話賓館有限公司

Leave to appeal was refused because the Labour Tribunal's decision was well reasoned, supported by clear and overwhelming evidence, and contained no legal error; the appellant's allegations of bias were unsubstantiated.

Citation
陳富華及另十一人 對 開心電話賓館有限公司
Parties
Claimant/respondent: 陳慶森; Claimant/respondent: 謝權; Second Defendant / Claimant: 陳富華; Claimant/respondent: 許景朝; Claimant/respondent: 林俊文; Claimant/respondent: 劉美美; Claimant/respondent: 羅鈺雄; Claimant/respondent: 梁業華; Claimant/respondent: 盧松青; Claimant/respondent: 覃家銘; Claimant/respondent: 譚錦胡; Claimant/respondent: 吳金花; Defendant/appellant: 開心電話賓館有限公司
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 December 2016
Case Number
HCLA33/2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Labour Tribunal / Application for Leave to Appeal (decision on Application)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employment Relationship, Employer Liability, Leave to Appeal, Bias and Procedural Fairness
Source Language
CH
Employment/labour Law Civil Procedure/appeal Employment Relationship Employer Liability Leave to Appeal Bias and Procedural Fairness

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

陳慶森

Claimant/respondent

謝權

Claimant/respondent

陳富華

Second Defendant / Claimant

許景朝

Claimant/respondent

林俊文

Claimant/respondent

劉美美

Claimant/respondent

羅鈺雄

Claimant/respondent

梁業華

Claimant/respondent

盧松青

Claimant/respondent

覃家銘

Claimant/respondent

譚錦胡

Claimant/respondent

吳金花

Claimant/respondent

開心電話賓館有限公司

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Labour Tribunal / Application for Leave to Appeal (decision on Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant (開心電話賓館有限公司) was the employer of the claimants
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Tribunal's decision contained legal error warranting appellate intervention
  3. 3 Whether allegation of bias against the adjudicator was substantiated

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Labour Tribunal's decision was well reasoned, supported by clear and overwhelming evidence, and contained no legal error; the appellant's allegations of bias were unsubstantiated.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

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