MOK LI YUN v. D\'URBAN DISTRIBUTORS (HONG KONG) LIMITED

MOK LI YUN v. D\'URBAN DISTRIBUTORS (HONG KONG) LIMITED

The appeal was allowed because the Presiding Officer erred by suggesting the claimant needed indisputable proof, failed to investigate relevant facts (including demotion, rank and company structure) and did not adequately address whether the claimant unreasonably refused a re-engagement offer under s.31C; the proper course is remittal to the Labour Tribunal for retrial before a different Presiding Officer to determine those factual and statutory issues.

Citation
MOK LI YUN v. D\'URBAN DISTRIBUTORS (HONG KONG) LIMITED
Parties
Appellant/claimant (employee): Mok Li Yun; Defendant (employer): D Urban Distributors (Hong Kong) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 March 1995
Case Number
HCLA17/1994
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal to High Court / Appeal Heard; Judgment Remitting Matter to Labour Tribunal for Retrial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted to the Labour Tribunal for retrial before another Presiding Officer
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Severance Payment, Standard of Proof (balance of Probabilities), Re Engagement Offers Under S.31 C Employment Ordinance, Remittal and Retrial
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Labour Tribunal Procedure Statutory Interpretation Constructive Dismissal Severance Payment Standard of Proof (balance of Probabilities) Re Engagement Offers Under S.31 C Employment Ordinance Remittal and Retrial

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mok Li Yun

Appellant/claimant (employee)

D Urban Distributors (Hong Kong) Limited

Defendant (employer)

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal to High Court / Appeal Heard; Judgment Remitting Matter to Labour Tribunal for Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was dismissed by respondent on 11 March 1993
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was constructively dismissed by being required to accept a lower rank post
  3. 3 Whether the Presiding Officer misapplied the standard of proof by requiring indisputable or irrefutable evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the Presiding Officer erred by suggesting the claimant needed indisputable proof, failed to investigate relevant facts (including demotion, rank and company structure) and did not adequately address whether the claimant unreasonably refused a re-engagement offer under s.31C; the proper course is remittal to the Labour Tribunal for retrial before a different Presiding Officer to determine those factual and statutory issues.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted to the Labour Tribunal for retrial before another Presiding Officer

Orders

  • Remit case to Labour Tribunal for retrial before a different Presiding Officer
  • Remit issue whether claimant was given one month’s notice on 11 March 1993 for determination at retrial