Curlewis Eric Frederick and Another v. International Tutors Ltd

HCLA 26/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

LABOUR TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2015

(ON APPEAL FROM LABOUR TRIBUNAL CLAIM NO. 339 OF 2015)

________________________

________________________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.The defendant has not appeared this morning to prosecute its application for leave to appeal against the decision of the Labour Tribunal (“Tribunal”) made on 22 July 2015 (“Decision”).

2.An “Application to withdraw leave to appeal” was filed by the defendant yesterday.  In that document, the defendant stated, inter alia, that it had not been granted leave to represent itself in these matters and asked for leave to withdraw this appeal “without prejudice to its right to bring a future application for leave to appeal …”.  It was further stated that the defendant would not appear this hearing.

3.There is no explanation as to why the defendant has not applied for leave to represent itself (there is no sign of such application in the court file).  In the absence of such leave, the defendant is not entitled to take any step in these proceedings.

4.Quite apart from the legal technicalities, the Decision is one of case management by which the Tribunal directed that the defendant’s strike out application be heard together with the trial.  I am unable to see any merit in this application.

5.In the premises, this application is dismissed.

The defendant was not represented and did not appear