盧偉河 對 威格斯物業管理及警衛服務(香港)有限公司,前稱為威格斯物業管理服務(香港)有限公司

盧偉河 對 威格斯物業管理及警衛服務(香港)有限公司,前稱為威格斯物業管理服務(香港)有限公司

Even assuming the respondent did not dismiss the claimant under s9, that did not alter the adjudicator's dismissal of the long service payment claim because the claimant failed to meet the statutory five‑year service requirement under s31R and s32A was inapplicable where the adjudicator found no unlawful dismissal; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 4165
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Lo Wai Ho (盧偉河); Respondent/defendant: Wiggs Property Management and Guarding Services (Hong Kong) Limited (威格斯物業管理及警衛服務(香港)有限公司)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 September 2025
Case Number
HCLA32/2024
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal (long Service Payment Claim) / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Long Service Payment, Termination Under S9 Employment Ordinance, Eligibility Under S31 R, S32 a Remedial Provisions, Appeal on Point of Law
Source Language
CH
Employment Law Labour Tribunal Procedure Statutory Remedies Under the Employment Ordinance Long Service Payment Termination Under S9 Employment Ordinance Eligibility Under S31 R S32 a Remedial Provisions Appeal on Point of Law

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lo Wai Ho (盧偉河)

Appellant/claimant

Wiggs Property Management and Guarding Services (Hong Kong) Limited (威格斯物業管理及警衛服務(香港)有限公司)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal (long Service Payment Claim) / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent dismissed the claimant pursuant to s9 of the Employment Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether any such dismissal affects the claimant's claim for long service payment under s32O and the eligibility rules in s31R
  3. 3 Whether s32A remedies apply (requiring at least 24 months' employment)

Ratio Decidendi

Even assuming the respondent did not dismiss the claimant under s9, that did not alter the adjudicator's dismissal of the long service payment claim because the claimant failed to meet the statutory five‑year service requirement under s31R and s32A was inapplicable where the adjudicator found no unlawful dismissal; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs; costs order is interim and will become absolute if not varied within 14 days