曾健鴻及另十位 v. 青木建設株式會社

曾健鴻及另十位 v. 青木建設株式會社

On the evidence there was no adequate proof that Kenly had accepted and communicated any repudiation by the 4th Defendant; hence the contractual relationship was not shown to have been terminated and Kenly remained potentially liable under ss.43C-43D; there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
曾健鴻及另十位 v. 青木建設株式會社
Parties
Claimants: 11 Claimants; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant (principal contractor); 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant (superior sub-contractor); 3rd Defendant (applicant for Leave): Kenly (HK) Ltd; 4th Defendant: 4th Defendant (employer of the claimants)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 June 2000
Case Number
HCLA49/2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From a Labour Tribunal Award / Leave to Appeal Application Refused at First Instance on 29 June 2000; Reasons Handed 5 July 2000
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Unpaid Wages, Overtime Allowance, Subcontractor Liability Under Part XIA of Employment Ordinance, Contract Repudiation and Acceptance, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Labour Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Unpaid Wages Overtime Allowance Subcontractor Liability Under Part XIA of Employment Ordinance Contract Repudiation and Acceptance +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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

11 Claimants

Claimants

1st Defendant (principal contractor)

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant (superior sub-contractor)

2nd Defendant

Kenly (HK) Ltd

3rd Defendant (applicant for Leave)

4th Defendant (employer of the claimants)

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal From a Labour Tribunal Award / Leave to Appeal Application Refused at First Instance on 29 June 2000; Reasons Handed 5 July 2000

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether principal contractor and superior sub-contractors are liable under ss.43C-43D of the Employment Ordinance when the contract between sub-contractor and employer had been terminated or repudiated
  2. 2 Whether Kenly had validly accepted and communicated any repudiation by the 4th Defendant so as to terminate the contractual relationship
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants worked at the site during the relevant period such that arrears were due

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence there was no adequate proof that Kenly had accepted and communicated any repudiation by the 4th Defendant; hence the contractual relationship was not shown to have been terminated and Kenly remained potentially liable under ss.43C-43D; there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal by Kenly (HK) Ltd refused