KIAWCHANSAENG, RENU v. HO KIM KAY CANNY

KIAWCHANSAENG, RENU v. HO KIM KAY CANNY

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's intended grounds were too vague and lacked required particulars to show an error of law; the Presiding Officer's findings that the employer's purported deduction was unlawful, that the employer retrieved the cash and thus did not pay the full salary, and that there...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
KIAWCHANSAENG, RENU v. HO KIM KAY CANNY
Parties
Claimant (respondent): Kiawchansaeng, Renu; Defendant (applicant): Ho Kim Kay Canny
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 January 2002
Case Number
HCLA78/2001
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Deemed Dismissal, Salary Payment, Unlawful Deduction, Leave to Appeal, Error of Law in Factual Findings
Source Language
en
Employment Law Labour Tribunal Procedure Deemed Dismissal Salary Payment Unlawful Deduction Leave to Appeal Error of Law in Factual Findings

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kiawchansaeng, Renu

Claimant (respondent)

Ho Kim Kay Canny

Defendant (applicant)

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 32 of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Presiding Officer erred in law in finding deemed dismissal arising from non-payment of salary
  3. 3 Whether a tender of reduced cash payment constituted payment where the deduction was unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's intended grounds were too vague and lacked required particulars to show an error of law; the Presiding Officer's findings that the employer's purported deduction was unlawful, that the employer retrieved the cash and thus did not pay the full salary, and that there was deemed dismissal were supported by evidence and did not amount to an arguable error of law under the Labour Tribunal Ordinance.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed