Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remittal to tribunal

Legal area

Court

25 Jul 2024

唐弋蘇對新衛保安服務有限公司

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1882
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA26/2023

The Court found the adjudicator had not properly considered the observations set out in the earlier judgment (Part 4) when ordering an indefinite adjournment; accordingly the Court, exercising its power under Labour Tribunal Ordinance s.35(1)(c), remitted the applicant's application to the Labour Tribunal for reconsideration with directions to take the Court's observations in Part 4 into account and awarded costs to the applicant assessed summarily at HKD 3,000 (provisional).
24 Feb 2022

J v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 510
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL385/2019

Although the Director provided misleading information about the posting date, the misleading information did not amount to flagrant improper behaviour nor did it clearly and materially contribute to the TCAB error; accordingly no order for costs against the Director is warranted.
30 Apr 2019

CHENG CHAK NGOK v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 17
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV125/2018

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal had correctly identified the real issue — that the Tribunal had applied a criminal standard rather than the civil balance of probabilities — there was no unresolved question of law requiring determination by the Court of Final Appeal, and the remitter to a differently constituted Tribunal was appropriate as the Court of Appeal's judgment will not preclude a fair rehearing.
4 Apr 2019

莊新初對 NGC HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 904
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA59/2018

The High Court granted permission to appeal because there was a reasonable and arguable error in the tribunal's decision to strike out the claimant's claim on the ground that the certification was issued by the US parent company; the correct approach should have been to consider adding the parent as a party or otherwise permit further proceedings rather than striking out the claim outright.
2 Apr 2019

LOK MAN FAI FELIX v. ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 405
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV268/2017

The Inquiry Committee’s decision contained no reasons for its findings; under the Architects Registration Ordinance a review committee must see the inquiry committee’s reasons to perform its statutory review, and once the review committee has confirmed the decision it is impermissible to accept supplemental reasons from the original inquiry as that would defeat the two‑tier review and risk ex post facto reconstruction. Therefore the appeal is allowed, the inquiry committee’s decision (as confirmed by the review committee) is set aside in respect of the specified complaints and the disciplinar…
1 Feb 2019

FILBERT TERRENCE KIRK v. BIG BLUE RESOURCES LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 285
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA27/2015

The Presiding Officer's order was set aside because he erred in law and in reasoning by failing to investigate fully whether a contract of employment existed, the capacity in which the Claimant was engaged (executive v managing director), and the validity/effect of any assignment; it was erroneous to hold both defendants jointly and severally liable without proper findings; the proper remedy was to remit the whole case to the Labour Tribunal for retrial before a different presiding officer with directions not to be bound by the previous factual findings and to consider transfer to the High Co…
21 Aug 2018

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. PERFEKTA ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 544
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV115/2017

Both applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal were dismissed. The court held Perfekta’s framed question was not engaged because the appeal was confined to choosing between the majority and the minority views and the minority view could be treated as the Board’s decision in those circumstances; and the Commissioner’s challenge to established trading profit computation was not reasonably arguable and did not demonstrate that ss14/16 IRO invariably dispense with opening/closing stock adjustments. Costs were awarded to the respective parties with certificate for two counsel.
26 Jul 2018

MALLORCA JOENALYN DOMINGO v. NG MEI SHUEN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1642
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA8/2017

The Presiding Officer erred in law and in the exercise of discretion by failing to consider the factors in PD 29 paragraph 5 and to balance prejudice between parties, by applying an unduly restrictive test for allowing representation under s23, and by striking out the claimant's unsettled claims without first exploring alternatives such as remittal or adjournment; appeal allowed, order of 30 March 2017 set aside, claims restored, and VCF and representation applications remitted to the Labour Tribunal to be reheard by a different presiding officer.
28 Jun 2018

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. PERFEKTA ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 373
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV115/2017

Taxpayer failed on two of the three issues; its only success was on valuation which was remitted to the Board and was not raised below, therefore the Court ordered the taxpayer to pay two-thirds of the costs of the appeal (with a certificate for two counsel) and declined to disturb the existing costs order below made by Chung J.
15 Nov 2016

PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV115/2015

The Court held there should be no differentiation between the 'Before Value' and 'After Value' in respect of deferment period and uncertainty/risk — both values must be assessed by reference to the same prevailing market expectations; the Lands Tribunal's award is set aside and the case remitted to the Tribunal to determine compensation in accordance with this Court's judgment; declarations were unnecessary; costs of the appeals ordered that each party bear their own costs; leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused for both parties.