SIT ANDREW v. OTS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LTD

SIT ANDREW v. OTS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LTD

The Presiding Officer’s factual finding that the appellant agreed to the pay reduction was open on the evidence (witness testimony and contemporaneous emails) and supported by appellant’s initial acceptance of reduced pay; no error of law or jurisdiction was established, therefore leave to appeal was properly refused.

Citation
SIT ANDREW v. OTS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LTD
Parties
Claimant/appellant: SIT ANDREW (薛念聰); Defendant/respondent: OTS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 January 2017
Case Number
HCLA20/2016
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to High Court Under S32(1) Labour Tribunal Ordinance
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Variation of Employment Contract, Wages and Arrears, Leave to Appeal, Credibility Findings
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Contract Law Labour Tribunal Procedure Variation of Employment Contract Wages and Arrears Leave to Appeal Credibility 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SIT ANDREW (薛念聰)

Claimant/appellant

OTS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to High Court Under S32(1) Labour Tribunal Ordinance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was agreement to vary the employment contract by a 75% pay reduction
  2. 2 Whether the Presiding Officer erred in law or exceeded jurisdiction such that leave to appeal should be granted
  3. 3 Whether findings of fact and credibility by the Tribunal are reviewable on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Presiding Officer’s factual finding that the appellant agreed to the pay reduction was open on the evidence (witness testimony and contemporaneous emails) and supported by appellant’s initial acceptance of reduced pay; no error of law or jurisdiction was established, therefore leave to appeal was properly refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs