Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Presiding officer duty to investigate

  • 24 Oct 2024

    POON SHING HIN v. LI WAI CHUN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY LTD

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 2564
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCLA22/2023

    The appeal is allowed because the Deputy Presiding Officer failed to discharge the statutory inquisitorial duty to investigate material discrepancies and to test the evidence of the only other party to the alleged oral agreement (Madam Chang), improperly limited relevant cross‑examination about potential collusion and declined to receive fresh evidence on review; those failures rendered the Award unsafe and justice required setting it aside and remitting for retrial before another presiding officer.

    • Oral agreement
    • Allowance and bonus
    • Presiding officer duty to investigate
    • Remote testimony
    • Admissibility of documents
    • Review and rehearing

  • 24 Aug 2020

    SO YIU WOON AND ANOTHER v. WONG DING HSIANG

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 2104
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCSA12/2020

    The Court refused leave to appeal because the defendant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law: the Presiding Officer lawfully re-considered and weighed competing expert and Joint Office evidence, complied with statutory investigatory duties, applied the correct approach to burden of proof, and made a reasonable assessment of damages. The application to amend the grounds was dismissed and no sustainable point of law was shown that would justify appellate intervention.

    • Water leakage
    • Expert evidence
    • Presiding officer duty to investigate
    • Leave to appeal
    • Burden of proof
    • Assessment of damages

  • 31 Jul 1997

    SUEN LAI SUET AND OTHERS v. OWNFIELD GARMENT MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.

    Citation
    SUEN LAI SUET AND OTHERS v. OWNFIELD GARMENT MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCLA29/1996

    The appeal was allowed because the Presiding Officer erred in law by failing to advise the appellant to call known corroborative witnesses where that failure materially affected the credibility assessment of the appellant's defence; the error warranted setting aside the award and remitting the matter to the Labour Tribunal for rehearing by a different presiding officer.

    • Lay-off
    • Constructive dismissal
    • Statutory payment
    • Presiding officer duty to investigate
    • Appeal against factual findings
    • Inquisitorial proceedings