黃智鴻 對 曾立民經營深情公司

黃智鴻 對 曾立民經營深情公司

The Court of Appeal refused leave because the appellant's grounds lacked merit, the record showed no coercion or bias by the trial appeal judge who properly invited the parties to decide whether to remit the matter, the case did not raise an issue of general public importance under s35A, and the appellant had agreed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCA 1101
Parties
Applicant: WONG CHI HUNG (黃智鴻); Respondent: TSANG LAP MAN T/A SUM CHING COMPANY (曾立民經營深情公司)
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 November 2024
Case Number
CAMP43/2024
Procedural Posture
Employment/labour Tribunal Appeal (leave Application) / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; summons dated 7 March 2024 revoked
Legal Topics
Wrongful Dismissal, Payment in Lieu of Notice, Procedural Fairness, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
ch
Employment Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Wrongful Dismissal Payment in Lieu of Notice Procedural Fairness Admission of Fresh Evidence Leave to Appeal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WONG CHI HUNG (黃智鴻)

Applicant

TSANG LAP MAN T/A SUM CHING COMPANY (曾立民經營深情公司)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment/labour Tribunal Appeal (leave Application) / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Tribunal erred by admitting fresh oral evidence about the applicant smelling of alcohol without giving the applicant opportunity to respond
  2. 2 Whether the High Court should remit the matter to the Labour Tribunal for rehearing
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was coerced into abandoning his claim and/or costs without legal representation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal refused leave because the appellant's grounds lacked merit, the record showed no coercion or bias by the trial appeal judge who properly invited the parties to decide whether to remit the matter, the case did not raise an issue of general public importance under s35A, and the appellant had agreed in open court not to pursue the respondent's claim or costs; accordingly permission to appeal was refused and a rule was made precluding further oral reconsideration under High Court Rules Order 59 r2A(8).

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; summons dated 7 March 2024 revoked

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Summons dated 7 March 2024 revoked