梁賀成 對 聯英投資 (廣州) 有限公司及另一人

梁賀成 對 聯英投資 (廣州) 有限公司及另一人

The court refused leave because the appellant failed to demonstrate any legal error or that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction; the tribunal had considered the disputed documents and testimony and reasonably accepted the respondents' explanations that the documents did not prove an employment relationship with Union Yield, and the driving arrangements were informal and insufficient to establish employment.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2239
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Leung Hor Shing; First Defendant/respondent: Union Yield Investments (Guang Zhou) Limited; Second Defendant/respondent: Li Guo Xi
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 October 2018
Case Number
HCLA32/2017
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employment Relationship, Leave to Appeal, Evidential Sufficiency, Jurisdictional Threshold
Source Language
CH
Employment Law Labour Tribunal Procedure Civil Evidence Employment Relationship Leave to Appeal Evidential Sufficiency Jurisdictional Threshold

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leung Hor Shing

Applicant/appellant

Union Yield Investments (Guang Zhou) Limited

First Defendant/respondent

Li Guo Xi

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was an employee of the first or second respondent
  2. 2 Whether documents C-2 and C-12 and other evidence were sufficient to establish an employment relationship
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Tribunal made an error of law or exceeded its jurisdiction such as to justify leave to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused leave because the appellant failed to demonstrate any legal error or that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction; the tribunal had considered the disputed documents and testimony and reasonably accepted the respondents' explanations that the documents did not prove an employment relationship with Union Yield, and the driving arrangements were informal and insufficient to establish employment.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal refused