CHU HEI MAN, QUALIA v. DYNASTY WORLD HOLDINGS LTD.

CHU HEI MAN, QUALIA v. DYNASTY WORLD HOLDINGS LTD.

The tribunal’s factual finding that the appellant voluntarily accepted a reference letter as consideration and had a real choice means her resignation was voluntary and not a dismissal in law; therefore she was not entitled to wages in lieu of notice or pro rata year end payment under ss.7 and 11 of the Employment Ordinance.

Citation
CHU HEI MAN, QUALIA v. DYNASTY WORLD HOLDINGS LTD.
Parties
Claimant/appellant: CHU HEI MAN, QUALIA; Defendant/respondent: DYNASTY WORLD HOLDINGS LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 January 2000
Case Number
HCLA58/1999
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal (high Court) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Voluntary Resignation, Wages in Lieu of Notice, Pro Rata Year End Payment, Employment Ordinance Ss.7 and 11, Credibility Findings
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Labour Law Contract Law Constructive Dismissal Voluntary Resignation Wages in Lieu of Notice Pro Rata Year End Payment Employment Ordinance Ss.7 and 11 +1 more

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHU HEI MAN, QUALIA

Claimant/appellant

DYNASTY WORLD HOLDINGS LTD

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal (high Court) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was constructively dismissed or voluntarily resigned
  2. 2 Whether entitlement to wages in lieu of notice and pro rata year end payment arises (s.7 and s.11 Employment Ordinance)

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal’s factual finding that the appellant voluntarily accepted a reference letter as consideration and had a real choice means her resignation was voluntary and not a dismissal in law; therefore she was not entitled to wages in lieu of notice or pro rata year end payment under ss.7 and 11 of the Employment Ordinance.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to Respondent to be taxed if not agreed