TSANG CHI SHING RAYMOND v. CHINA INTERNATIONAL FINANCE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

TSANG CHI SHING RAYMOND v. CHINA INTERNATIONAL FINANCE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

The application to re-open was dismissed because the judge did not overlook the fourth ground (contemporaneous messages supported the finding that the 2nd Defendant was the employer), the failure to draw up the order was the 2nd Defendant's responsibility and cannot justify re-opening absent exceptional circumstances, and the high threshold to disturb Labour Tribunal factual findings was not met.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5017
Parties
Claimant: 曾治誠 (TSANG CHI SHING RAYMOND); 1st Defendant (appellant): 中國國際金融控股有限公司 (CHINA INTERNATIONAL FINANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED); 2nd Defendant (appellant): 張憲林 (ZHANG XIANLIN)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 November 2025
Case Number
HCLA35/2024
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / Application to Re Open Decision Following Refusal of Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application to re-open the decision of 28 March 2025 dismissed
Legal Topics
Re Opening of Judgment, Functus Officio, Leave to Appeal, Employment Status, Evidential Weight of Contemporaneous Messages
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Civil Procedure Appeal Procedure Labour Tribunal Practice Re Opening of Judgment Functus Officio Leave to Appeal Employment Status +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

曾治誠 (TSANG CHI SHING RAYMOND)

Claimant

中國國際金融控股有限公司 (CHINA INTERNATIONAL FINANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED)

1st Defendant (appellant)

張憲林 (ZHANG XIANLIN)

2nd Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / Application to Re Open Decision Following Refusal of Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should re-open the judge's decision of 28 March 2025
  2. 2 Whether the judge overlooked the 2nd Defendant's fourth intended ground that the employment was with Wadeitin Co Ltd rather than the 2nd Defendant
  3. 3 Whether failure to draw up the order prevents the court becoming functus officio and permits re-opening

Ratio Decidendi

The application to re-open was dismissed because the judge did not overlook the fourth ground (contemporaneous messages supported the finding that the 2nd Defendant was the employer), the failure to draw up the order was the 2nd Defendant's responsibility and cannot justify re-opening absent exceptional circumstances, and the high threshold to disturb Labour Tribunal factual findings was not met.

Court Disposition

Application to re-open the decision of 28 March 2025 dismissed

Orders

  • Dismissed the 2nd Defendant's application to re-open the decision dated 28 March 2025
  • No order as to costs