LEE SZE YIU v. THE GARDEN CO. LTD.

LEE SZE YIU v. THE GARDEN CO. LTD.

The dismissal was unjustified because the transfer orders were not reasonable in the factual context—some were precluded by the employer's acceptance of the claimant's medical incapacity and others were given as a penalty rather than for operational necessity—so the claimant's refusal was not wilful disobedience under section 9 of the Employees Ordinance and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
LEE SZE YIU v. THE GARDEN CO. LTD.
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mr Lee; Appellant/defendant: Defendant (bread making company)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 August 2000
Case Number
HCLA22/2000
Procedural Posture
Employment / Unfair Dismissal / Appeal to High Court (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Shift Transfer and Allowances, Reasonableness of Managerial Orders, Employees Ordinance S9, Disability/medical Incapacity and Dismissal
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Shift Transfer and Allowances Reasonableness of Managerial Orders Employees Ordinance S9 Disability/medical Incapacity and Dismissal

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Lee

Claimant/respondent

Defendant (bread making company)

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment / Unfair Dismissal / Appeal to High Court (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether dismissal for refusal to obey shift transfer constituted wilful disobedience to a lawful and reasonable order under s9 of the Employees Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the transfer orders were given for genuine operational reasons or as a penalty
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's medical condition justified refusal of night shifts and rendered his refusal non-wilful

Ratio Decidendi

The dismissal was unjustified because the transfer orders were not reasonable in the factual context—some were precluded by the employer's acceptance of the claimant's medical incapacity and others were given as a penalty rather than for operational necessity—so the claimant's refusal was not wilful disobedience under section 9 of the Employees Ordinance and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondent