健威營造有限公司 對 秦頌德

健威營造有限公司 對 秦頌德

Leave to appeal refused because applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law or that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction; the tribunal correctly applied Employment Ordinance s40 to find the applicant, not having been continuously employed for three months, was not entitled to statutory holiday pay; the chat records were inadmissible new evidence under Ladd v Marshall because the applicant had them and could have produced them at the original hearing and they would not have had an important influence on the result; post‑hearing submissions were properly refused.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 932
Parties
Claimant (respondent): 健威營造有限公司; Defendant (applicant): 秦頌德 (Chun Chung Tak Hubert)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 March 2025
Case Number
HCSA1/2025
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal (leave to Appeal Application) / Permission Stage
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Statutory Holidays, Probationary Employment, New Evidence Admissibility (ladd V Marshall), Leave to Appeal, Tribunal Jurisdiction
Source Language
CH
Employment Law Civil Procedure Evidence Appeal Law Statutory Holidays Probationary Employment New Evidence Admissibility (ladd V Marshall) Leave to Appeal +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

健威營造有限公司

Claimant (respondent)

秦頌德 (Chun Chung Tak Hubert)

Defendant (applicant)

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeal (leave to Appeal Application) / Permission Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether employee was entitled to statutory holiday pay during probation
  3. 3 Whether chat records submitted at leave stage constitute admissible new evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law or that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction; the tribunal correctly applied Employment Ordinance s40 to find the applicant, not having been continuously employed for three months, was not entitled to statutory holiday pay; the chat records were inadmissible new evidence under Ladd v Marshall because the applicant had them and could have produced them at the original hearing and they would not have had an important influence on the result; post‑hearing submissions were properly refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • No order as to costs