XCHRX KWOK CHUCK SANG v. HONG KONG SECURITY GUARDING SERVICES LTD.

HCLA 3/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

LABOUR TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO. HCLA 3 OF 1999

(On appeal from Labour Tribunal Claim No. LBTC 8511 of 1998)

____________

____________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1. The Claimant applied before me for leave to appeal against the decision of Presiding Officer Roy Yu of the Labour Tribunal to amend the title of the Defendant to "Hong Kong Security Guarding Services Ltd.".

2. He was dismissed after he was served a letter of dismissal. The letter was signed by a Alvis Chan the Assistant Personnel Manager for and on behalf of Hong Kong Security Guarding Services Ltd.

3. He named the Defendant as "Mr. Alvis Chan, Assistant Personnel Manager, Hong Kong Security Guarding Services Limited, 1 Floor, The Security Centre, 483 Castle Peak Road Cheung Sha Wan Kowloon."

4. The Presiding Officer had a discussion with the Claimant as to who should be the proper Defendant. The Claimant insisted that Alvis Chan was the "person" or legal entity who gave him the letter of dismissal and he should claim against "him" i.e. Alvis Chan.

5. Mr. Lau Tat Cheung representing Hong Kong Security Guarding Services Ltd. confirmed that his company did authorize Mr. Chan to issue the letter of dismissal. The contract of employment was also between the Claimant and that company. Hence the Presiding Officer amended the title of Defendant to Hong Kong Security Guarding Services Ltd.

6. The Grounds of Appeal by the Claimant as stated in Form 14 are as follows:-

"1. Order - amended defendant as Hong Kong Security Guarding Services Limited.

Erroneous - partly correct or incorrect beliefs, opinions or methods (Collins Cobuild English Dictionary 1995 p. 560) Correct - in accordance with the facts and unmistakable (p. 366)

2. Fact - a person who had called himself Alvis Chan and the Assistant Personnel Manager of a company of Jardine wrote a letter to terminate employment services. Mr. Yu seemed to assume expatriate management had authorized the letter in the first hearing.

3. Mr. Yu did not attend the matters about the absence of Mr. Alvis Chan and the witnesses in the first hearing. Mr. Yu said it was not important for the witnesses who had been served with subponenas to attend the court.

4. A few past cases involving the defendants as the particular individuals representing the companies appear to be quoted in Volume 10(2), Halsbury's Laws of Hong Kong published by Butterworths."

7. The Presiding Officer is right in law in amending the title of the Defendant to that of Hong Kong Security Guarding Services Ltd. as the contract of employment was between the Claimant and the Company. Alvis Chan had clearly stated in the letter of dismissal that he signed in his capacity as Assistant Personnel Manager for and on behalf of the Company. There is no point of law involved which should go to appeal. I therefore dismiss his application.