CHAN MEI YING AND OTHERS v. YICK FUNG GARMENT FACTORY LTD

CHAN MEI YING AND OTHERS v. YICK FUNG GARMENT FACTORY LTD

The High Court upheld the Labour Tribunal's factual findings that the 1980 offer was a flat HK$50/day and had lapsed; an unaccepted offer cannot be treated as a contract 'under the contract' for the purposes of s31E, so the claimants were laid-off and entitled to severance; the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
CHAN MEI YING AND OTHERS v. YICK FUNG GARMENT FACTORY LTD
Parties
Claimant/respondent: CHAN MEI YING; Claimant/respondent: CHAN YUET SHEUNG; Claimant/respondent: MA KIU LAM; Claimant/respondent: WONG KIT LING; Claimant/respondent: CHIANG SHUK LIN; Claimant/respondent: CHEUNG YUN LIN; Claimant/respondent: LAI CHING CHOR; Claimant/respondent: YIP SHOR WAN; Claimant/respondent: SO CHOR HING; Claimant/respondent: IO LAI FONG; Claimant/respondent: YIU WAI CHUN; Claimant/respondent: MAR OI KUEN; Claimant/respondent: CHIANG SEUK FAR; Claimant/respondent: CHIANG SIU WAH; Claimant/respondent: CHEUNG DZUA LAU; Claimant/respondent: HGAI YAU SUN; Claimant/respondent: LAN CHI PING; Claimant/respondent: CHAN YUET NGOR; Claimant/respondent: WONG SIN CHI; Claimant/respondent: CHOI KWAI YEE; Claimant/respondent: LAM WAI KWONG; Claimant/respondent: YEUNG WAI FONG; Claimant/respondent: LAM KIN PING; Defendant/appellant: YICK FUNG GARMENT FACTORY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 April 1987
Case Number
HCLA77/1986
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / Appeal to High Court; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Severance Pay, Laid Off Definition, Offer and Acceptance, Causation, Appellate Review of Factual Findings
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Labour Law Contract Law Severance Pay Laid Off Definition Offer and Acceptance Causation Appellate Review of Factual Findings

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHAN MEI YING

Claimant/respondent

CHAN YUET SHEUNG

Claimant/respondent

MA KIU LAM

Claimant/respondent

WONG KIT LING

Claimant/respondent

CHIANG SHUK LIN

Claimant/respondent

CHEUNG YUN LIN

Claimant/respondent

LAI CHING CHOR

Claimant/respondent

YIP SHOR WAN

Claimant/respondent

SO CHOR HING

Claimant/respondent

IO LAI FONG

Claimant/respondent

YIU WAI CHUN

Claimant/respondent

MAR OI KUEN

Claimant/respondent

CHIANG SEUK FAR

Claimant/respondent

CHIANG SIU WAH

Claimant/respondent

CHEUNG DZUA LAU

Claimant/respondent

HGAI YAU SUN

Claimant/respondent

LAN CHI PING

Claimant/respondent

CHAN YUET NGOR

Claimant/respondent

WONG SIN CHI

Claimant/respondent

CHOI KWAI YEE

Claimant/respondent

LAM WAI KWONG

Claimant/respondent

YEUNG WAI FONG

Claimant/respondent

LAM KIN PING

Claimant/respondent

YICK FUNG GARMENT FACTORY LIMITED

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / Appeal to High Court; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants were 'laid-off' within meaning of s31E Employment Ordinance and thus entitled to severance under s31B
  2. 2 Whether an offer made in 1980 to pay fixed sums remained open in 1985/86
  3. 3 Whether an unaccepted offer can defeat entitlement 'under the contract' in s31E

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the Labour Tribunal's factual findings that the 1980 offer was a flat HK$50/day and had lapsed; an unaccepted offer cannot be treated as a contract 'under the contract' for the purposes of s31E, so the claimants were laid-off and entitled to severance; the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the 3rd claimant to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations
  • All claimants except No.12 (Mar Oi Kuen) to be paid HK$160 each for expenses and loss of earnings resulting from the appeal