史家仁及另一人 對 中國海外房屋工程有限公司及另三人

史家仁及另一人 對 中國海外房屋工程有限公司及另三人

Leave to appeal refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable error of law or that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under s32(1); the Tribunal's decision was a factual credibility-based determination supported by the evidence and did not meet the threshold for appellate interference.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1053
Parties
First Claimant: SHI JIAREN; Second Claimant (applicant): YANG CHEN; First Defendant: CHINA OVERSEAS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LIMITED; Second Defendant: GOLD MANTIS (INTERNATIONAL) CONSTRUCTION DECORATION LIMITED; Third Defendant: HAP YING (HONG KONG) ENGINEERING LIMITED; Fourth Defendant (d4): 沈卓群
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 May 2022
Case Number
HCLA2/2022
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal (permission to Appeal Under Labour Tribunal Ordinance) / Application for Leave to Appeal (permission to Appeal)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Employment Status, Appeal Permission, Credibility Findings, Evidence Evaluation
Source Language
ch
Labour Law Civil Procedure Employment Status Appeal Permission Credibility Findings Evidence Evaluation

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SHI JIAREN

First Claimant

YANG CHEN

Second Claimant (applicant)

CHINA OVERSEAS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

First Defendant

GOLD MANTIS (INTERNATIONAL) CONSTRUCTION DECORATION LIMITED

Second Defendant

HAP YING (HONG KONG) ENGINEERING LIMITED

Third Defendant

沈卓群

Fourth Defendant (d4)

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal (permission to Appeal Under Labour Tribunal Ordinance) / Application for Leave to Appeal (permission to Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant was employed by the Fourth Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Tribunal erred in law or exceeded its jurisdiction such that permission to appeal should be granted
  3. 3 Whether factual credibility findings by the Tribunal can be overturned on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable error of law or that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under s32(1); the Tribunal's decision was a factual credibility-based determination supported by the evidence and did not meet the threshold for appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal refused.