LEE THAI LAI v. WONG CHUNG KAI t/a KAI HING TRADING CO AND ANOTHER

LEE THAI LAI v. WONG CHUNG KAI t/a KAI HING TRADING CO AND ANOTHER

The appeal was allowed because the Tribunal's reasons did not establish any lawful basis to pierce the corporate veil or to find an agency relationship that would justify joint and several liability; accordingly the judgment against both Defendants was set aside and the claim remitted for re-trial.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LEE THAI LAI v. WONG CHUNG KAI t/a KAI HING TRADING CO AND ANOTHER
Parties
Claimant: Lee Thai Lai; 1st Defendant: Wong Chung Kai t/a Kai Hing Trading Company; 2nd Defendant: Target General Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 December 2003
Case Number
HCLA64/2003
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal to Court of First Instance / Judgment on Appeal; Matter Remitted to Labour Tribunal for Retrial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment against both Defendants set aside; claim remitted to Labour Tribunal for re-trial before another Presiding Officer.
Legal Topics
Lifting Corporate Veil, Joint and Several Liability, Arrears of Wages, Agency Principles, Retrial Order
Source Language
en
Company Law Employment Law Agency Civil Procedure Lifting Corporate Veil Joint and Several Liability Arrears of Wages Agency Principles +1 more

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

Lee Thai Lai

Claimant

Wong Chung Kai t/a Kai Hing Trading Company

1st Defendant

Target General Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal to Court of First Instance / Judgment on Appeal; Matter Remitted to Labour Tribunal for Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant is liable for arrears of wages
  2. 2 Whether the corporate veil of the 2nd Defendant should be lifted to hold the 1st Defendant liable
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd Defendant acted as agent of the 1st Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the Tribunal's reasons did not establish any lawful basis to pierce the corporate veil or to find an agency relationship that would justify joint and several liability; accordingly the judgment against both Defendants was set aside and the claim remitted for re-trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment against both Defendants set aside; claim remitted to Labour Tribunal for re-trial before another Presiding Officer.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and judgment entered against both Defendants set aside
  • Claim remitted to the Labour Tribunal for a re-trial before another Presiding Officer