黃藝文 對 佳定物業管理有限公司

黃藝文 對 佳定物業管理有限公司

The Tribunal's decision to adjourn the matter pending the police investigation into the authenticity of the resignation letter was a valid case management decision within its powers and involved no legal error; accordingly the applicant was not entitled to leave to appeal under s.32(1) and the application for leave...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 223
Parties
Claimant: WONG NGAI MAN (黃藝文); Defendant: GUARDIAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (佳定物業管理有限公司)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 January 2020
Case Number
HCLA23/2019
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal (lbtc 23/2019) / Application for Leave to Appeal (determined)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; leave revoked.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Case Management, Forgery/alleged Signature Forgery, Adjournment Pending Criminal Investigation
Source Language
ch
Employment Law Civil Procedure Evidence Leave to Appeal Case Management Forgery/alleged Signature Forgery Adjournment Pending Criminal Investigation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WONG NGAI MAN (黃藝文)

Claimant

GUARDIAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (佳定物業管理有限公司)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal (lbtc 23/2019) / Application for Leave to Appeal (determined)

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Tribunal's adjournment order pending police investigation was a proper case management decision
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to leave to appeal under s.32(1) of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether the resignation letter was authentic and decisive for the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's decision to adjourn the matter pending the police investigation into the authenticity of the resignation letter was a valid case management decision within its powers and involved no legal error; accordingly the applicant was not entitled to leave to appeal under s.32(1) and the application for leave is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; leave revoked.

Orders

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