ALLIDEM MAE G v. KWONG SI LIN

ALLIDEM MAE G v. KWONG SI LIN

The termination letter expressly effected immediate termination by payment of a month's salary in lieu; on its true construction the dismissal was under s.7, not a summary dismissal under s.9, so the employee was entitled to long service payment. Alternatively, even if the termination were treated as s.9 dismissal, the evidence was insufficient to justify summary dismissal.

Citation
ALLIDEM MAE G v. KWONG SI LIN
Parties
Respondent (claimant): Allidem Mae G; Appellant (defendant): Kwong Si Lin
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 December 2005
Case Number
HCLA4/2004
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal to Court of First Instance / Judgment on Appeal (handed Down 29 December 2005)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Long Service Payment, Summary Dismissal, Payment in Lieu of Notice, Burden of Proof, Employer Election of Termination Mode
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Labour Law Statutory Interpretation Long Service Payment Summary Dismissal Payment in Lieu of Notice Burden of Proof Employer Election of Termination Mode

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allidem Mae G

Respondent (claimant)

Kwong Si Lin

Appellant (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal to Court of First Instance / Judgment on Appeal (handed Down 29 December 2005)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer's termination letter constituted a summary dismissal under s.9 Employment Ordinance or a termination by payment in lieu under s.7
  2. 2 If termination was a summary dismissal, whether the employee's conduct justified summary dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The termination letter expressly effected immediate termination by payment of a month's salary in lieu; on its true construction the dismissal was under s.7, not a summary dismissal under s.9, so the employee was entitled to long service payment. Alternatively, even if the termination were treated as s.9 dismissal, the evidence was insufficient to justify summary dismissal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Employee entitled to and awarded long service payment as ordered by the Labour Tribunal (HK$24,518.30)