The Court of First Instance has provided timely guidance on managing overlapping employment disputes that straddle the Labour Tribunal and the High Court. In Vantage Capital Markets HK Limited v Salles Antoine Paul Benjamin [2025] HKCFI 3516, Chan J dismissed an employee’s application for leave to appeal against a Labour Tribunal decision transferring both the employer’s claim and the employee’s counterclaim to the High Court. The judgment clarifies the scope of the Labour Tribunal’s transfer power under the Labour Tribunal Ordinance (LTO), the limits of the Employment Ordinance (EO) wage-deduction protections at the jurisdictional stage, and the court’s preference for coherent case management over fragmented proceedings. It has practical implications for practitioners planning parallel or sequential proceedings. 

Background 

Vantage Capital Markets HK Limited employed Mr Salles as Global Head of MSCI Trading and Head of the Asia Ex-Japan Delta One Desk under a March 2020 agreement. Following an internal investigation into alleged proprietary “rogue trading” in March 2024, the employer terminated his contract on 19 April 2024, effective 30 September 2024. 

Two sets of proceedings followed, arising from substantially the same facts but under different legal frameworks. In August 2024 the employer commenced a Labour Tribunal claim for roughly HK$35 million, including alleged trading losses, bonus overpayments, and wages in lieu of notice. The employee counterclaimed for about HK$42 million for unpaid wages, bonuses, annual-leave pay, deficit allocation, and deferred revenue. 

In March 2025 — seven months after the Tribunal claim and shortly before trial — the employer issued a High Court writ (HCA 653/2025) on the same facts, adding negligence, deceit, and restitution, which fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. At a Pre-trial Review in  April 2025, the employer applied under s.10 LTO to transfer the entire Tribunal proceedings, including the employee’s contractual counterclaim, to the Court of First Instance (CFI). The Presiding Officer granted the application to avoid inconsistent factual findings. The employee’s review failed, and he sought leave to appeal under s.32 LTO, alleging three errors of law. Chan J dismissed the application. 

Issues raised on appeal 

The employee raised three questions of law:

1. The Tribunal failed to give sufficient weight to the prejudice caused by the employer’s late transfer application, brought three weeks before trial and after duplicative High Court proceedings had begun. 

2. Relying on Xu Yi Jun v GF Capital (HK) Ltd [2021] 1 HKC 191, s.32 EO bars an employer from setting off unliquidated damages against wages until liability is proved, a bar the Tribunal purportedly overlooked. 

3. Section 7 LTO and paragraph 1 of its Schedule give the Tribunal exclusive jurisdiction over his contractual counterclaim (each below HK$3 million), a protection intended to prevent employers from shifting the battlefield. 

Leave to appeal lies only for bona fide, reasonably arguable questions of law. Chan J held that none of the proposed grounds met that threshold.

The Court’s Analysis

Chan J accepted the Tribunal was aware of the lateness and potential prejudice but prioritised avoiding  inconsistent rulings across jurisdictions – a consideration within its broad discretion under s.10 LTO. Delay can be readily compensated in costs, whereas conflicting factual determinations cannot. This aligns with the modern case-management ethos in Order 1A of the Rules of the High Court (RHC), which prioritises proportionate, expeditious, and cost-saving case management and discourages fragmentation. 

On s.32 EO, the Tribunal  considered the statutory text and Xu Yi Jun. Here, entitlement to bonuses and profit share was disputed, including under clause 6.5 of the Employment Agreement requiring the employee to be in employment and “not under notice” before payments vest. The s.32 point was premature at the transfer stage. Nothing prevents the employee, once in the CFI, from seeking summary judgment under O.14 r.5 RHC on indisputable parts of his counterclaim.

As for exclusive jurisdiction, while the Tribunal ordinarily has sole authority over employment-related contractual claims under HK$3 million, that jurisdiction is subject to s.10 LTO. The legislature envisaged circumstances where an employee’s claim might be heard in the High Court alongside broader employer claims. Exercising the transfer power did not undermine the LTO’s protective purpose. The employee remains free to pursue his claim in the CFI and, if successful, to recover enhanced costs caused by the employer’s conduct.

Implications 

The judgment underscores that parties must be alert to the strategic use of transfer applications. Employers  pursuing High Court causes of action overlapping with Tribunal matters should act promptly or risk adverse costs and accusations of procedural abuse. The Court signalled a readiness to deploy robust case management to prevent duplicative litigation and preserve coherent fact-finding, giving practical effect to the overriding objective in O.1A RHC. 

Employees should recognise that s.32 EO does not create a freestanding right to block an employer’s set-off arguments before liability is established and cannot be used merely to resist transfer. While timing-related prejudice is relevant, Chan J’s reasoning indicates it will usually be addressed through costs, not by denying a transfer. Employees who believe aspects of their counterclaims are straightforward should consider summary judgment under O.14 r.5 once in the CFI to mitigate delay. 

The decision also illuminates the roles and limits of the Tribunal and the High Court in employment disputes. The Tribunal is designed as a quick, inexpensive, and informal forum for monetary claims arising from contracts of employment or the EO, often operating inquisitorially. But its exclusive jurisdiction is not absolute. It may, at any stage, decline jurisdiction and transfer a case to the High Court or District Court if unsuitable for its process — particularly where there are complex issues, mixed claims including torts or non-monetary relief, or a need for legal representation. 

Authors