LING SHING HONG TRADING AS VIDEO COMPASS v. C1: CHAN CHI KIN AND OTHERS

LING SHING HONG TRADING AS VIDEO COMPASS v. C1: CHAN CHI KIN AND OTHERS

The Presiding Officer erred in law by treating the letter of authorization on the face of it made for and on behalf of Video Compass Limited as binding upon the individual appellant; because the authorization was corporate and the representatives expressly stated they represented the company, there was no one present representing the appellant at the 7 November hearing, rendering the consent judgment against the appellant erroneous; appeal allowed and matter remitted to the Tribunal to rehear the s21A application on the basis that Exh D1 is not binding on the appellant.

Citation
LING SHING HONG TRADING AS VIDEO COMPASS v. C1: CHAN CHI KIN AND OTHERS
Parties
Appellant/defendant: LING SHING HONG trading as VIDEO COMPASS; Respondents/claimants: CHAN CHI KIN & 24 OTHERS
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 May 1990
Case Number
HCLA71/1989
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Labour Tribunal Ordinance (point of Law) / Supreme Court Judgment and Remit to Labour Tribunal for Rehearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to Labour Tribunal for rehearing of the application under section 21A on basis that the appellant was absent at the 7 November hearing and Exh D1 did not bind him
Legal Topics
Representation and Authority, Consent Judgment, Assignment of Business, Set Aside Order (s21 A), Jurisdictional Limits, Security for Costs
Source Language
EN
Labour Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Agency Law Representation and Authority Consent Judgment Assignment of Business Set Aside Order (s21 A) +2 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LING SHING HONG trading as VIDEO COMPASS

Appellant/defendant

CHAN CHI KIN & 24 OTHERS

Respondents/claimants

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Labour Tribunal Ordinance (point of Law) / Supreme Court Judgment and Remit to Labour Tribunal for Rehearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a letter of authorization executed on behalf of a limited company binds an individual defendant who is a distinct legal person
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Tribunal erred in treating company representatives as representing the individual defendant and accepting their consent as binding on him
  3. 3 Whether the assignment of the business to Video Compass Limited transferred liabilities of the individual/firm to the company

Ratio Decidendi

The Presiding Officer erred in law by treating the letter of authorization on the face of it made for and on behalf of Video Compass Limited as binding upon the individual appellant; because the authorization was corporate and the representatives expressly stated they represented the company, there was no one present representing the appellant at the 7 November hearing, rendering the consent judgment against the appellant erroneous; appeal allowed and matter remitted to the Tribunal to rehear the s21A application on the basis that Exh D1 is not binding on the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to Labour Tribunal for rehearing of the application under section 21A on basis that the appellant was absent at the 7 November hearing and Exh D1 did not bind him

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Matter remitted to Labour Tribunal to rehear the application made under section 21A of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance on the basis that the appellant was absent at the 7 November 1989 hearing and Exh D1 was not binding on him; Tribunal may exercise its discretion on such terms as it thinks just