Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tribunal duty to investigate

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2023

LEROY KNITWEARS LTD v. JONES LANG LASALLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1156
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA31/2020

The adjudicator's causation finding could not stand because he failed to consider or make findings on the burst B1 pipe evidence and thereby omitted a relevant factor; the tribunal also failed to fulfil its s16(3) investigatory duty by not advising the defendant to call expert evidence, resulting in injustice; however the adjudicator's reliance on the defendant's internal guidelines to find sandbags could have prevented flooding was within the range of reasonable findings. Orders set aside and matters remitted for fresh determination with directions to explore expert evidence and the B1 pipe…
28 Apr 2023

WONG SIN CHUN v. JONES LANG LASALLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1156
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA28/2020

The adjudicator erred as a matter of law and/or by failing to take into account relevant evidence because he omitted to consider the evidence of a burst B1 rainwater pipe that may have caused the flooding and failed to advise the defendant to adduce expert evidence on causation and the effectiveness of sandbags/water barriers; while his reliance on the defendant's internal guidelines to support a finding that sandbags could have prevented flooding was within the range of reasonable findings, the omissions caused injustice and the proper remedy is to set aside and remit the claims to the Small…
3 Nov 2022

KAM WING YAN v. COLMAN LI CONSULTING LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3377
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA8/2022

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the five grounds failed to raise arguable points of law and instead impermissibly attacked the Tribunal's factual findings; the alleged procedural errors, exclusion of evidence and statutory or regulatory issues were either irrelevant, unarguable or not shown to have produced unfairness or bias sufficient to justify leave.
6 Oct 2014

SO KIN FUN v. HONGPLUS PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS LTD

Citation

SO KIN FUN v. HONGPLUS PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA25/2012

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because the Labour Tribunal Officer had evaluated the evidence with care and in accordance with established principles; no arguable error of law was shown on the merits of the Tribunal's findings that Li was the employer and that Hongplus was not liable, and although the Officer's suggestion to withdraw the Alternative Case raised legitimate concern, it did not justify setting aside the Decision or granting leave given the absence of a sustainable challenge to the Tribunal's findings and the risk of unfairness to Hongplus.

Hong Kong Case Law

LEROY KNITWEARS LTD v. JONES LANG LASALLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD

WONG SIN CHUN v. JONES LANG LASALLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD

KAM WING YAN v. COLMAN LI CONSULTING LTD

SO KIN FUN v. HONGPLUS PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS LTD