Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Exclusive jurisdiction of labour tribunal

Legal area

Court

14 Jan 2026

秦頌德對健威營造有限公司

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 289
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA24/2025

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the claimant's asserted grounds were either outside the Small Claims Tribunal's jurisdiction (copyright claims; claims arising from the employment contract which fall within the Labour Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction) or were factual credibility and evidential issues properly decided by the adjudicator for which leave to appeal will not be granted; the claimant failed to show a question of law or a jurisdictional error sufficient to obtain leave.
6 Aug 2025

VANTAGE CAPITAL MARKETS HK LTD v. SALLES ANTOINE PAUL BENJAMIN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3516
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA18/2025

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court concluded there was no arguable error of law: the Tribunal had considered the prejudice of late transfer and reasonably concluded costs could compensate; transfer under s.10 LTO was justified to avoid inconsistent findings given overlapping factual issues and some causes of action were outside Tribunal jurisdiction; s.32 EO protection did not assist before liability was established; overall the Tribunal's exercise of discretion was not plainly wrong and the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable.
7 Apr 2025

梁褀榮對斯樂鞋廠有限公

Citation

[2025] HKDC 651
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4783/2024

The plaintiff's claim is founded on alleged wrongful dismissal seeking monetary relief and contains no independent tort; such claims fall within the Labour Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction under the Labour Tribunal Ordinance (Cap.25) Schedule and s7(2). Therefore the District Court lacks jurisdiction and the statement of claim is struck out; the court also ordered costs to the defendant.
7 Nov 2023

PONOMAROVA OLENA v. MASTER KENT YEE, DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1170
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV313/2022

The appeal is dismissed because the Applicant's intended High Court claim plainly fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal, the Director correctly refused legal aid for a High Court action, the Master adequately stated reasons and did not act with procedural impropriety, and the Applicant's supplemental appeal grounds and proposed fresh evidence failed procedural and Ladd v Marshall tests and were therefore inadmissible.
17 Feb 2023

LO WAI KEUNG v. HANNOVER RÜCK SE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 420
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1687/2021

The Court held the pleaded claim, read as a whole, is contractual in substance (breach of employment contract and Employment Ordinance) and falls within the Labour Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction; no independent tortious causes (defamation or malfeasance) are pleaded and proposed tortious allegations would be mere window-dressing, so the Master’s striking out order is upheld and leave to amend is refused.
13 Feb 2015

LEUNG CHUNG LAN LORRAINE v. MERRILL LYNCH (ASIA PACIFIC) LTD

Citation

LEUNG CHUNG LAN LORRAINE v. MERRILL LYNCH (ASIA PACIFIC) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5145/2013

The claim was struck out because the essence of the claim was a trust claim against the Scheme Trustee and the defendant was not the trustee and Rule 18 disclaims employer liability; alternatively any contractual claim fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal and was time-barred under the Limitation Ordinance, so the claim could not possibly succeed.
23 Dec 2013

NOBLE SPIRIT LTD t/a LIFE SOLUTIONS v. WONG SHU YUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

NOBLE SPIRIT LTD t/a LIFE SOLUTIONS v. WONG SHU YUEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA842/2011

Mind Body’s monetary claims against Lee are founded in contract and in equity (duties arising from employment) and are therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal under s7 and the Schedule; paragraph 3’s exception (claims founded in tort) did not apply, and the injunctive relief was historical; consequently the High Court must strike out those claims and the appeal is dismissed.
25 Apr 2012

AXA CHINA REGION INSURANCE CO LTD v. LIN KWAI YING KATIE

Citation

AXA CHINA REGION INSURANCE CO LTD v. LIN KWAI YING KATIE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1228/2011

The amended statement of claim was struck out because it is defective and fails to plead essential material facts (specific dealings, solicitation/inducement and intention) such that it discloses no reasonable cause of action on the tort of causing loss by unlawful means; however, because the legal issue as to the scope of 'unlawful means' is unsettled and the tort claim is not mere 'window-dressing', the plaintiff was granted leave to re-amend the statement of claim within 21 days rather than having the action dismissed.
19 Apr 2010

NGAN YU CHIU v. NEW WORLD FIRST BUS SERVICES LTD

Citation

NGAN YU CHIU v. NEW WORLD FIRST BUS SERVICES LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ824/2009

The claim was struck out because it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal and the Plaintiff's attempt to litigate alleged re‑employment and related damages in this Court constituted an abuse of process and was barred by issue estoppel given the prior binding finding of constructive dismissal; consequently leave to file out of time was refused and costs awarded to the Defendant.
5 Aug 2008

ADVANCED MP TECHNOLOGY HK LTD v. SU YAN WEN LISA

Citation

ADVANCED MP TECHNOLOGY HK LTD v. SU YAN WEN LISA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1252/2007

Pleadings as filed were vague and disclosed no reasonable cause of action; however voluntary particulars revealed tortious conduct (data copying/deletion and solicitation) taking the claims outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal. Leave to strike out was granted conditional on the plaintiff amending pleadings to disclose a reasonable cause of action within 14 days, failing which the actions would be dismissed with costs to the defendants.