WONG YEE-CHUN AND OTHERS v. TUNIS LTD AND ANOTHER

WONG YEE-CHUN AND OTHERS v. TUNIS LTD AND ANOTHER

Leave to appeal was granted on the specific question of law whether the Presiding Officer was correct in rejecting claims for want of sufficient particulars and whether Claimant 4 was wrongly dismissed without being given a further opportunity to sign; the matter is suitable for determination by a Judge of the High...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WONG YEE-CHUN AND OTHERS v. TUNIS LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant (claimants): WONG Yee-chun and 32 others; First Respondent (defendant): Tunis Limited formerly known as The Chinachem Realty Co. Ltd.; Second Respondent (defendant): WONG See-wai
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 January 1987
Case Number
HCLA89/1986
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Granted
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to Claimants 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,13,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34 and 35; Claimants 14 and 24 succeeded at first instance; Claimant 11's claim rejected.
Legal Topics
Sufficiency of Particulars, Leave to Appeal, Opportunity to Be Heard, Legal Aid
Source Language
en
Labour Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Sufficiency of Particulars Leave to Appeal Opportunity to Be Heard Legal Aid

Source-derived case record

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WONG Yee-chun and 32 others

Applicant (claimants)

Tunis Limited formerly known as The Chinachem Realty Co. Ltd.

First Respondent (defendant)

WONG See-wai

Second Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Presiding Officer was correct in law to reject claims for want of sufficient particulars of work alleged to have been done
  2. 2 Whether the Presiding Officer was correct in law to dismiss Claimant 4 without giving him a further opportunity to sign the claim

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted on the specific question of law whether the Presiding Officer was correct in rejecting claims for want of sufficient particulars and whether Claimant 4 was wrongly dismissed without being given a further opportunity to sign; the matter is suitable for determination by a Judge of the High Court and legal aid for representation was directed to be considered.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to Claimants 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,13,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34 and 35; Claimants 14 and 24 succeeded at first instance; Claimant 11's claim rejected.

Orders

  • Grant leave to appeal on the question whether the Presiding Officer was correct in law in rejecting claims for want of sufficient particulars and in dismissing Claimant 4 without further opportunity to sign
  • Recommend that Legal Aid be granted to the appellants to appear by one Counsel