KING WIN DYEING WORKS LTD. v. CHEUNG WAN SHING
Leave to appeal was granted because the proper allocation of the burden of proof in redundancy/dismissal cases under Part VA raises a question of law of general public importance that requires authoritative determination.
- Citation
- KING WIN DYEING WORKS LTD. v. CHEUNG WAN SHING
- Parties
- Intended Respondent: CHEUNG WAN SHING; Intended Appellant: KING WIN DYEING WORKS LIMITED
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 24 March 1995
- Case Number
- HCMP523/1995
- Procedural Posture
- Labour Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S.35 a Labour Tribunal Ordinance
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Redundancy, Severance Pay, Burden of Proof, Dismissal, Statutory Presumption
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
CHEUNG WAN SHING
Intended Respondent
KING WIN DYEING WORKS LIMITED
Intended Appellant
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S.35 a Labour Tribunal Ordinance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the initial burden of proof lies on the employee to establish that his contract was terminated and that the dismissal was not for good cause under s.9 for the purposes of Part VA of the Employment Ordinance
- 2 Whether statutory provisions (notably ss.31Q, 31B, 31D) place a presumption shifting the burden of proof to the employer to rebut redundancy
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted because the proper allocation of the burden of proof in redundancy/dismissal cases under Part VA raises a question of law of general public importance that requires authoritative determination.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted
Orders
- Leave granted in terms of the revised proposed Notice of Appeal submitted on 22 March 1995
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment