LAM SIK CHEUNG v. KOWLOON-CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION

LAM SIK CHEUNG v. KOWLOON-CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION

The High Court refused leave because the applicant did not demonstrate any error of law or that the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction under s.32(1); the adverse credibility and factual findings were matters for the Tribunal and do not justify granting leave to appeal.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LAM SIK CHEUNG v. KOWLOON-CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Lam Sik Cheung; Defendant/respondent: Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 July 1984
Case Number
HCLA14/1984
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal (wages in Lieu of Notice) Application for Leave Under Labour Tribunal Act S.32(1) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the High Court (leave Hearing and Decision)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Wrongful Dismissal, Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction, Credibility Findings
Source Language
en
Labour Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Wrongful Dismissal Leave to Appeal Jurisdiction Credibility Findings

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Sik Cheung

Claimant/applicant

Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal (wages in Lieu of Notice) Application for Leave Under Labour Tribunal Act S.32(1) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the High Court (leave Hearing and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s.32(1) of the Labour Tribunal Act
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Tribunal erred in law or acted outside its jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether appellate intervention is warranted in respect of the Tribunal's factual and credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court refused leave because the applicant did not demonstrate any error of law or that the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction under s.32(1); the adverse credibility and factual findings were matters for the Tribunal and do not justify granting leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal denied.