NG MAN KONG v. HAI TAT TRANSPORTATION CO LTD

NG MAN KONG v. HAI TAT TRANSPORTATION CO LTD

The High Court refused leave to appeal: the presiding officer was entitled to prefer the claimants' evidence, the receipts were ambiguous and did not establish an agreed split, inconsistencies in employer witnesses justified rejection of the employer's case, and any minor imperfections in the presiding officer's inquiry did not render the outcome unjust or require appellate intervention.

Citation
NG MAN KONG v. HAI TAT TRANSPORTATION CO LTD
Parties
Claimant: Mr Poon; Claimant: Mr Ng; Respondent/applicant: Respondent/Applicant (employer)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 May 2006
Case Number
HCLA93/2005
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal Against Labour Tribunal Awards / Application for Leave to Appeal to High Court (decision)
Outcome
application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Annual Leave, Holiday Pay, Wages in Lieu of Notice, Evidence and Credibility, Duty to Inquire
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Tribunal Procedure Administrative Law Annual Leave Holiday Pay Wages in Lieu of Notice Evidence and Credibility Duty to Inquire

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Poon

Claimant

Mr Ng

Claimant

Respondent/Applicant (employer)

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal Against Labour Tribunal Awards / Application for Leave to Appeal to High Court (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an agreed splitting of the 26% commission into 23% wages, 2% annual leave/holiday pay and 1% annual accumulation fund
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd claimant was dismissed without notice or resigned
  3. 3 Whether the presiding officer failed in his statutory duty to investigate relevant matters and whether any failure caused injustice

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court refused leave to appeal: the presiding officer was entitled to prefer the claimants' evidence, the receipts were ambiguous and did not establish an agreed split, inconsistencies in employer witnesses justified rejection of the employer's case, and any minor imperfections in the presiding officer's inquiry did not render the outcome unjust or require appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • application refused with no order as to costs