KEI SIU HUNG v. CAF SECURITIES CO LTD

KEI SIU HUNG v. CAF SECURITIES CO LTD

The Presiding Officer lawfully considered all relevant indicia, his factual findings and credibility assessments were supported by evidence and the inference that the parties had a contract for services was a reasonable conclusion within the range of conclusions open to a reasonable tribunal; consequently there was no error of law and leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
KEI SIU HUNG v. CAF SECURITIES CO LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 November 2008
Case Number
HCLA39/2008
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Leave to Appeal to Court of First Instance / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Employment Status, Contract of Employment Vs Contract for Services, Leave to Appeal, Standard of Appellate Review, Credibility Findings, Industry Practice
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Labour Law Contract Law Administrative Law Employment Status Contract of Employment Vs Contract for Services Leave to Appeal Standard of Appellate Review +2 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Leave to Appeal to Court of First Instance / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was an employee or an independent contractor
  2. 2 Whether the Presiding Officer erred in law in weighing indicia and drawing inference of contract for services
  3. 3 Whether the application for leave is barred by section 32 of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance limiting appeals to questions of law or jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Presiding Officer lawfully considered all relevant indicia, his factual findings and credibility assessments were supported by evidence and the inference that the parties had a contract for services was a reasonable conclusion within the range of conclusions open to a reasonable tribunal; consequently there was no error of law and leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Applicant's application for leave to appeal refused.