LAM PAK WOON AND OTHERS v. NEW ART INDUSTRIAL CO

LAM PAK WOON AND OTHERS v. NEW ART INDUSTRIAL CO

The Presiding Officer misapplied his discretion by refusing to set aside an ex parte award solely because the defendant's representative had not been completely frank; where the defendant had disclosed a defence, intended to defend, the absence was due to carelessness only, and respondents would suffer no irremediable prejudice, justice required setting the award aside and remitting the matter for rehearing under section 21A.

Citation
LAM PAK WOON AND OTHERS v. NEW ART INDUSTRIAL CO
Parties
1st Claimant (1st Respondent): Lam Pak Woon; 2nd Claimant (2nd Respondent): Ng Sau Suen; 3rd Claimant (3rd Respondent): Mui Kei Ting; Defendant (applicant): New Art Industrial Company
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 March 1987
Case Number
HCLA88/1986
Procedural Posture
Appeal to High Court From Labour Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal (leave Granted by Deputy High Court Judge)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; award set aside; matter remitted to the Labour Tribunal for rehearing.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Ex Parte Award, Judicial Exercise of Discretion, Notice of Hearing, Rehearing
Source Language
EN
Labour Law Civil Procedure Appeal Setting Aside Ex Parte Award Judicial Exercise of Discretion Notice of Hearing Rehearing

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Pak Woon

1st Claimant (1st Respondent)

Ng Sau Suen

2nd Claimant (2nd Respondent)

Mui Kei Ting

3rd Claimant (3rd Respondent)

New Art Industrial Company

Defendant (applicant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal to High Court From Labour Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal (leave Granted by Deputy High Court Judge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Presiding Officer exercised his discretion under section 21A of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance judicially in refusing to set aside an award made in the absence of the defendant
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's carelessness and lack of complete candour justified refusal to set aside the award
  3. 3 Whether respondents would suffer irremediable prejudice if the award were set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The Presiding Officer misapplied his discretion by refusing to set aside an ex parte award solely because the defendant's representative had not been completely frank; where the defendant had disclosed a defence, intended to defend, the absence was due to carelessness only, and respondents would suffer no irremediable prejudice, justice required setting the award aside and remitting the matter for rehearing under section 21A.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; award set aside; matter remitted to the Labour Tribunal for rehearing.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Award set aside.