6 Aug 2025
The application for leave was refused because the applicant failed to raise any arguable point of law or jurisdictional error: the claim is plainly time‑barred by the six‑year limitation under Cap.347 s4 and there is no basis to treat a company incorporated long after the alleged employment as liable for wages from 1984–1987, so leave to appeal is not warranted.
26 Mar 2025
No leave to extend time was granted because the applicant filed the Notice of Appeal 42 days late without an affirmation or adequate explanation; the delay was substantial and unjustified and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success because the pleaded causes of action were hopeless (privacy claim failed under PDPO, false imprisonment not pleaded, unsafe workplace claims lacked pleaded elements) and the remaining constructive dismissal claim fell within the Labour Tribunal’s exclusive jurisdiction; accordingly the application for extension was dismissed and the NoA struck out with…
20 Dec 2024
The High Court refused leave because the Labour Tribunal correctly found the claimant had no contractual entitlement to the night shift allowance and his department did not meet the scheme's eligibility criteria; the claimant's complaints about administrative fairness/policy design are not matters within the Labour Tribunal's jurisdiction; the leave application raised no arguable point of law.
18 Oct 2024
The applicant's grounds challenged factual findings which were supported by contemporaneous documents and witness evidence; the tribunal lawfully assessed credibility and weighed email evidence, made no legal error and its factual conclusions were open on the evidence; penal sanctions were correctly rejected as outside the tribunal's jurisdiction; accordingly leave to appeal is refused.
28 May 2024
Leave to appeal is refused because the applicant's grounds challenge the tribunal's factual findings rather than raising an arguable question of law or jurisdiction; the tribunal's reasons were adequate as they addressed the substantial issues and showed consideration of the parties' primary arguments, so there is no basis for granting leave.
22 Nov 2023
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the applicant had statutory alternative remedies for the DLA decision, the Masters dismissal of the appeal was not shown to be tainted by illegality, irrationality or unfairness, there was no evidence of LADs use of AI or of the Masters procedural impropriety, and the applicants substantive claims largely fell within the Labour Tribunals exclusive jurisdiction or were excepted from legal aid.
25 Aug 2022
The claim, on its true substance, is a monetary claim arising from termination of employment and thus falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal; the Statement of Claim fails to plead any real tort or statutory cause of action that would oust that jurisdiction and the Reply cannot cure those pleading defects, so the strike‑out and dismissal were correctly ordered.
26 Jul 2022
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the intended grounds were not reasonably arguable: the intended High Court claim arose from the employment contract and fell within the Labour Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction for which legal aid is unavailable; the Master correctly treated the appeal as a de novo assessment, did not commit public law error, gave adequate reasons in context, and the DLA decision was not amenable to review where the statutory appeal was pursued.
31 Jan 2022
The court refused permission to appeal on the substantive grounds because the Labour Tribunal's findings that there was no contractual breach giving rise to the claimed future wages, no proven disciplinary stigma, and that the applicant failed to mitigate were fact‑based and not set aside on grounds of error of law. Permission to appeal was granted only on a narrow legal question whether the tribunal miscalculated the costs award by failing to use the respondent representative's 2020 daily rate, producing an overaward of HK$78.
2 Nov 2020
Leave to appeal dismissed because the alleged employer causes of action were in tort or mixed contract/tort and thus outside the Labour Tribunal's jurisdiction, so the DPO was not required to investigate them further, and no substantial wrong or miscarriage was shown to justify granting leave.