5 Aug 2022
Leave to appeal refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the adjudicator made a legal error or exceeded jurisdiction; the application concerned factual matters (including the consensual settlement) and thus did not satisfy the statutory requirement that an appeal raise solely questions of law.
10 Dec 2018
Because Full Flush and Cheung failed to appear and adduce their evidence, the court disregarded their contested evidence and accepted claimants' uncontradicted witness and expert evidence that (i) claimants were owed unpaid employment entitlements and reimbursements, (ii) sums advanced by claimants were injected into Full Flush and were recoverable, and (iii) Cheung was personally liable under the guarantee for the on‑lent loans; accordingly judgment was entered for claimants for the specific sums proved, Elsa was found constructively dismissed, statutory and contractual interest was awarded,…
9 Apr 2014
Leave to appeal refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal error or that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction; the tribunal’s factual findings on roster/entry records, leave, commission payments and the reasons for dismissal were adequately supported by evidence and therefore not susceptible to overturn on a permission application.
21 Sept 2009
Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant failed to demonstrate any arguable point of law: the Presiding Officer's findings that clause 8.7.2 was not part of most claimants' contracts, that there was no proven divulgence, and that some contacts were authorized are factual conclusions not vitiated by legal error and therefore not properly the subject of leave to appeal.
21 Sept 2009
The applications for leave to appeal are refused because the Presiding Officer correctly found that clause 8.7.2 did not form part of most claimants' contracts or was not breached on the facts, accepted the claimants' evidence, and the defendant failed to demonstrate any arguable point of law as required by Labour Tribunal Ordinance s32(1).
5 Nov 2007
Clause 10 of the renewal contract must be read as requiring the employer to bear and deduct the cost of any statutory long service payment from the contractual gratuity, meaning that notionally the employer paid statutory long service pay first; accordingly $103,196 of the $251,280 was properly characterised as long service pay (exempt from salaries tax) and the Commissioner's appeal was dismissed.
13 Jun 2007
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the contested findings were predominantly findings of primary fact based on the credibility of witnesses and therefore lacked a realistic prospect of success on appeal; the single finding based on inference (annual leave being ad hoc) had no other rational explanation on the facts found.
10 Jan 2007
The appeal was allowed and the award set aside because the presiding officer failed to investigate and apply sections 2 and 3 of the First Schedule to the Employment Ordinance to determine whether the claimant had a continuous contract; the matter is remitted to the Labour Tribunal to determine continuity and the quantum of annual leave and statutory holiday pay.
5 Dec 2006
On the factual matrix (control, integration into the defendants' business, provision of equipment, inability to delegate, no risk of profit/loss and limited freedom to take other work), the court found the relationship to be a contract of service; statutory protections applied (s70); dismissal was not a lawful summary dismissal under s9; defendants failed to rebut the s31Q presumption; defendants unlawfully withheld wages; accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the claimed sum and the counterclaim was dismissed.
29 Nov 2006
The Employment Contract was not signed by the defendant and did not reflect the parties' true verbal agreement; the court found on the evidence that the employer had consented to the defendant continuing limited individual design work so long as it did not interfere with his duties; therefore there was no breach of fiduciary duty requiring an account of profits and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed. Separately the defendant proved unpaid wages, bonus and expenses (less amounts received) and recovered HK$107,463.68; the defendant gave no valid notice so the plaintiff recovered one month's wa…