YONEZAWA KAZUHIRO v. W & R DESIGN CONSULTANTS CO LTD

HCLA 15/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

LABOUR TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2006

(ON APPEAL FROM LABOUR TRIBUNAL CLAIM NO. 5397 OF 2005)

____________

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

Introduction

1.  The applicant was the defendant in Labour Tribunal Claim No. LBTC 5397/2005.  It claims to be dissatisfied with the award made by the Labour Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) on 27 March 2006 and hence commenced this application seeking leave to appeal pursuant to s. 32(1)(a), Labour Tribunal Ordinance (Cap. 25) on the ground that it is:-

“… dissatisfied with an award, order or determination by the tribunal on the grounds that the award, order or determination is … erroneous in point of law …”.

2.  According to s. 32(2), the application should be made:-

“in the prescribed form which shall set out the grounds of appeal and the reasons in support of such grounds”.

3.  The only ground set out in the prescribed form is:-

“[the Tribunal] failed to recognize [the] true facts”.

Background Facts

4.  The facts found by the Tribunal can be summarized as follows.

5.  The applicant was the claimant’s former employer.  The claimant alleged that the applicant owed him wages in arrears.  The main thrust of the defence was that the claimant has been paid in full.

6.  The Tribunal, having heard testimony from both sides, chose to believe the claimant’s version and disbelieve that of the applicant.

The Allegations in this Application

7.  The Tribunal’s “reasons for decision” (dated 4 May 2006) spans over about 5 pages and consists of some 18 paragraphs.  On its face, the “reasons for decision” discusses in some detail the history of the proceedings, the nature of the claim and the defence, the parties’ respective version of events and the documentary materials presented before it.

8.  In light of such a document, the ground set out in the application (see para. 3 above) has no substance.  When queried, the applicant raised the following matters during the hearing of this application.

9.  First, the applicant complains that time was needed to investigate into the merits of the claim.  But the applicant also admitted during the hearing of this application that, even then, it was unsure whether it owed the claimant any sum (or vice versa).  The applicant thought that there might not be any debt owed by one to the other.

10.  Secondly, the applicant complains that the claimant has disposed of its funds for the claimant’s own use.  However, the applicant agrees that this matter was not pursued in the Tribunal.

11.  Thirdly, the applicant contends that the claimant was not an ordinary employee but has much closer relationship with it and has much greater power as regards its funds.  The applicant, nevertheless, fairly accepts that this point has not been raised before the Tribunal.

Conclusion

12.  In the above circumstances, I do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error, let alone an error in point of law.

13.  This application is therefore refused.