SULASIH v. LEUNG KUM

SULASIH v. LEUNG KUM

Leave to appeal was granted because there were reasonably arguable grounds that the adjudication officer failed to consider that the order adjourning the hearing had been returned by the Post Office and thus may not have been properly served, and that he failed to take into account the defendant's reasons for non-attendance before making the setting aside conditional on payment; leave was refused on the airfare/jurisdiction point as the claim under $8,000 fell within the Board's jurisdiction.

Citation
SULASIH v. LEUNG KUM
Parties
Claimant: SULASIH; Defendant (applicant): LEUNG KUM
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 January 2012
Case Number
HCME6/2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Minor Employment Claims Adjudication Board / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted on points of law relating to service and the imposition of security; leave refused on the airfare/jurisdiction ground.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Leave to Appeal, Setting Aside Award, Security for Costs, Conciliation
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Service of Process Jurisdiction Leave to Appeal Setting Aside Award Security for Costs +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SULASIH

Claimant

LEUNG KUM

Defendant (applicant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Minor Employment Claims Adjudication Board / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the adjudication officer wrongly imposed payment of the judgment sum as a condition to set aside the Award
  3. 3 Whether the Board properly served notice of the adjourned hearing under section 13

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted because there were reasonably arguable grounds that the adjudication officer failed to consider that the order adjourning the hearing had been returned by the Post Office and thus may not have been properly served, and that he failed to take into account the defendant's reasons for non-attendance before making the setting aside conditional on payment; leave was refused on the airfare/jurisdiction point as the claim under $8,000 fell within the Board's jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted on points of law relating to service and the imposition of security; leave refused on the airfare/jurisdiction ground.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted to the defendant on points of law against the order of 17 November 2011 refusing to set aside the Award unconditionally.
  • Leave to appeal refused insofar as it relied on the contention that the Board lacked jurisdiction to award $1,800 airfare.