Cheuk Miu Iing v. Eurasia Media Co Ltd

HCLA000035/1985

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

_____________

BETWEEN

______________

Coram: Mortimer J. in Chambers

Date of hearing: 23 October 1985

Date of handing down of judgment: 6 November 1985

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

1. The Defendant seeks leave to appeal against an order of Mr. Timothy Lee, Presiding Officer dated 27 August 1985 by which he granted the Defendant an adjournment on condition that it paid $20,000 into the Tribunal as security on or before 10 September 1985.

2. The Presiding Officer was exercising his powers under section 30 of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance, Cap. 25.

3. The grounds upon which the Defendant seeks leave are:

(a)    that the order is erroneous in point of law and

(b)    that it is Ultra Vires.

See section 32 of the above Ordinance.

Section 30 provides:

"The tribunal may, if it is of the opinion that an adjournment of the hearing of a claim may result in prejudice to a party because of the disposal or loss of control of assets by a defendant grant an adjournment only on payment into the tribunal of such sum of money, or the giving of such other security for the payment of the amount of any award as the tribunal may think sufficient."

4. The Defendant alleges in support of its proposed grounds of appeal that there was no evidence before the Tribunal to show that an adjournment of the hearing could result in prejudice to this Claimant because of disposal or loss of control of assets by the Defendant. Further, in the particulars, it alleges that the Presiding Officer ought to have adduced evidence of the financial standing of the Defendant and ought to have enquired into the possibility of the Defendant disposing or losing control of its assets.

5. After being shown the Presiding Officer's note and his brief reasons the Defendant further argued before me that the Presiding Officer was not entitled to adopt the opinion of the Claimant that the Defendant was using delaying tactics as his own opinion and he adopted the erroneous test that the order he made was fair and equitable.

6. At the hearing the Presiding Officer considered the Parties' submissions and the documents, he heard the Claimant and Miss Li Siu Chun on behalf of the Defendant. The Claimant told the Presiding Officer that he knew a lot of people had gone to the Defendant for money due to them from the company and that the Defendant was being sued by many people for debts owed. This statement by the Claimant was not challenged or denied by the Defendant. Further, Miss Li did not challenge the Claimant's allegations of delaying tacties save by inference and in any event these allegations were accepted by the Presiding Officer. (See 1st paragraph on page 2 of Brief Reasons.)

7. In exercising his discretion to make the order the Presiding Officer:

8. See: The Presiding Officer's brief reasons in which (inter alia)

9. In the light of these matters the grounds upon which the Defendant seeks leave to appeal are neither sustainable nor arguable in law and any appeal would be a waste of the court's time. Leave refused.

Representation:

S. Chong of Ronald Ho & Co. for Defendant/Applicant.