WAN SHU PUI AND OTHERS v. AU YUK LUN AND ANOTHER

WAN SHU PUI AND OTHERS v. AU YUK LUN AND ANOTHER

The defendants failed to discharge the Order 14 burden because their pleaded defence (oral reduction of salary, set‑off by provident fund, misconduct allegations) was not believable when tested against contemporaneous documents (notably the 2 July 1999 employment/salary letter and employer's remuneration returns)...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WAN SHU PUI AND OTHERS v. AU YUK LUN AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Wan Shu Pui; 2nd Plaintiff: Lee Yuk Bing; 3rd Plaintiff: Mok Lai Yi; 1st Defendant: Au Yuk Lun trading as Anthony Y.L. Au & Co.; 2nd Defendant: Brilliant Way Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 June 2002
Case Number
HCA252/2000
Procedural Posture
Employment Dispute and Summary Judgment Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Judgment Under Order 14
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unpaid Wages, Summary Judgment / Strike Out, Termination Under Employment Ordinance S10 a, Set Off / Provident Fund, Allegations of Misconduct (breach of Trust/fraud)
Source Language
en
Employment Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Unpaid Wages Summary Judgment / Strike Out Termination Under Employment Ordinance S10 a Set Off / Provident Fund Allegations of Misconduct (breach of Trust/fraud)

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wan Shu Pui

1st Plaintiff

Lee Yuk Bing

2nd Plaintiff

Mok Lai Yi

3rd Plaintiff

Au Yuk Lun trading as Anthony Y.L. Au & Co.

1st Defendant

Brilliant Way Company Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment Dispute and Summary Judgment Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Judgment Under Order 14

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants discharged burden under Order 14 to show a triable issue
  2. 2 Whether 3rd plaintiff was entitled to arrears of wages, year‑end payment, annual leave pay, lunch allowance, travelling expenses, s10A payment and severance/long service payment
  3. 3 Whether alleged oral agreement to halve salary and set off arrears by provident fund is believable and enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to discharge the Order 14 burden because their pleaded defence (oral reduction of salary, set‑off by provident fund, misconduct allegations) was not believable when tested against contemporaneous documents (notably the 2 July 1999 employment/salary letter and employer's remuneration returns) and the defendants' assertions were speculative; consequently there was no triable issue and summary judgment in favour of the 3rd plaintiff was correctly affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment in favour of the 3rd plaintiff affirmed for the sum of $420,028.00 with interest and costs
  • Appeal dismissed with costs nisi to the 3rd plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed