20 Sept 2017
陳金泉 對 元朗祥發大廈業主立案法團
- Citation
- 陳金泉 對 元朗祥發大廈業主立案法團
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCA479/2017
法院認為原告就大廈維修費攤分的申索已在先前多宗程序中獲最終裁決並涉及相同爭點，現案構成濫用司法程序且訴因缺乏事實及法律基礎；被告在限期最後一日申請剔除不得視為放棄抗辯；因此駁回及撤銷原告上訴，剔除傳訊令狀及申索，並命原告支付被告訟費（以彌償基準） 。
Hong Kong Case Law
Jurisdiction of tribunals
21 Nov 2003
DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE v. THE LICENSING APPEALS BOARD & ANOTHER
- Citation
- DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE v. THE LICENSING APPEALS BOARD & ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCAL41/2003
The Board erred in law: appeals to the Licensing Appeals Board under s125(9)/125B are confined to decisions about registrations, licences or permits; the standard Tenancy Agreement for the public market stall is in substance a lease and not a "registration, licence or permit" under s125(8); appeals concerning market stall tenancies are governed by the Public Markets Regulation (section 6A) which limits rights to tenants; consequently the Board had no jurisdiction to hear Mr Wong's appeal.
7 May 1997
LIU SAI LING v. MANNIS GARMENT FACTORY
- Citation
- LIU SAI LING v. MANNIS GARMENT FACTORY
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCSA2/1997
Section 9(3) of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance is a saving provision and does not preclude a claimant whose labour claim is time‑barred under s.9(1) from instituting proceedings in the Small Claims Tribunal where the claim falls within that Tribunal's monetary jurisdiction; therefore the Adjudicator erred in declining jurisdiction and the appeal is allowed with the matter remitted to the Small Claims Tribunal.
25 Mar 1994
MATHESON PFC LIMITED v. SIMON JANSEN
- Citation
- MATHESON PFC LIMITED v. SIMON JANSEN
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCA8703/1992
The definition of "contract of employment" in s.2 of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance, which covers agreements "wherever the services are to be rendered", includes contracts performed outside Hong Kong; the Schedule reference to performance in Hong Kong or under Cap.78 was not intended to limit that definition. Therefore the plaintiff's claim falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal and the court should not entertain the action.