Wong Yee-chun and Others v. Tunis Ltd and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCLA 89/1986 on BabelCite. This HCLA judgment.
1. Leave to appeal to Claimants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35. (All save Claimants 14 and 24 who succeeded and Claimant 11 whose claim was rejected on the evidence.)
|
HCLA000089/1986 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG LABOUR TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO. 89 OF 1986 (LABOUR TRIBUNAL CLAIM NO. 3656,3658,3675,3680 & 3698 of 1986) BETWEEN
-------------------------- Coram: Mortimer J. Date of hearing: 8th December 1986. Date of handing down of decision: 16th January 1987. ------------------------ DECISION ------------------------ 1. Leave to appeal to Claimants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35. (All save Claimants 14 and 24 who succeeded and Claimant 11 whose claim was rejected on the evidence.) 2. The particular question of law upon which I grant leave is whether the Presiding Officer was correct in law in rejecting the claims (in as far as he did) on the oasis of each Claimant's failure to provide sufficient particulars of the work alleged to have been done in all the circumstances of the case. Further, so far as Claimant 4 is concerned whether the Presiding Officer was correct in law in dismissing his case without giving him a further opportunity to sign the claim. It would assist the learned Judge who hears this appeal if the Appellants were to be granted Legal Aid to appear by one Counsel.
Representation: C3, C4 C6, C8, C9, C10 C12, C15, C16, C18, C22, C26, C27, C28, C31, C33 and C34 - Applicants - present |