YONEZAWA KAZUHIRO v. W & R DESIGN CONSULTANTS CO LTD

YONEZAWA KAZUHIRO v. W & R DESIGN CONSULTANTS CO LTD

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law in the Tribunal's detailed reasons, relied on fresh factual complaints not pursued below, and only advanced disputes about credibility and facts which are not sufficient to obtain leave under s.32(1)(a).

Source-derived case information.

Citation
YONEZAWA KAZUHIRO v. W & R DESIGN CONSULTANTS CO LTD
Parties
Applicant/defendant: W & R Design Consultants Company Limited; Respondent/claimant: Claimant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 May 2006
Case Number
HCLA15/2006
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal From Labour Tribunal Under S.32 Labour Tribunal Ordinance (cap.25) / Application for Leave to Appeal (chambers)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Labour Tribunal Appeals, Leave to Appeal, Error in Point of Law, Credibility Findings
Source Language
en
Employment Law Civil Procedure Labour Tribunal Appeals Leave to Appeal Error in Point of Law Credibility Findings

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W & R Design Consultants Company Limited

Applicant/defendant

Claimant

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal From Labour Tribunal Under S.32 Labour Tribunal Ordinance (cap.25) / Application for Leave to Appeal (chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal committed an error in point of law
  2. 2 Whether the application in the prescribed form raised arguable grounds of law
  3. 3 Whether new factual complaints not pursued before the Tribunal can sustain leave to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law in the Tribunal's detailed reasons, relied on fresh factual complaints not pursued below, and only advanced disputes about credibility and facts which are not sufficient to obtain leave under s.32(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal refused