CHEUNG SIU-NGON AND ANOTHER v. EDGE DESIGN COMMUNICATION LTD

CHEUNG SIU-NGON AND ANOTHER v. EDGE DESIGN COMMUNICATION LTD

The court found the 1st Plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed without lawful one month notice because the purported written notice was not served and attempted deduction of annual leave from the notice rendered it non-compliant with Section 6; the 2nd Plaintiff had offered to resign and that resignation was accepted and therefore she was not entitled to payment in lieu of notice or severance but was entitled to arrears, annual leave pay and pro‑rata end‑of‑year payment; Defendant's allegations of misconduct and conversion were not substantiated and the counterclaim failed; judgment awarded specified statutory sums to the plaintiffs and dismissed the counterclaim.

Citation
CHEUNG SIU-NGON AND ANOTHER v. EDGE DESIGN COMMUNICATION LTD
Parties
1st Plaintiff: CHEUNG SIU-NGON; 2nd Plaintiff: FUNG YEE-MEI; Defendant: EDGE DESIGN COMMUNICATION LTD
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 March 2003
Case Number
DCCJ19251/2001
Procedural Posture
Employment (wrongful Dismissal) / District Court Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs in part; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Wrongful Dismissal, Notice Requirements, Severance Pay, Annual Leave Entitlement, Summary Dismissal (misconduct), Conversion of Property, Counterclaim, Costs
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Tort (conversion) Wrongful Dismissal Notice Requirements Severance Pay Annual Leave Entitlement +4 more

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHEUNG SIU-NGON

1st Plaintiff

FUNG YEE-MEI

2nd Plaintiff

EDGE DESIGN COMMUNICATION LTD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment (wrongful Dismissal) / District Court Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 1st Plaintiff was validly given one month notice as required by Section 6 of the Employment Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether 2nd Plaintiff was dismissed or resigned and the legal consequences
  3. 3 Whether alleged misconduct justified summary dismissal under Section 9 of the Employment Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the 1st Plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed without lawful one month notice because the purported written notice was not served and attempted deduction of annual leave from the notice rendered it non-compliant with Section 6; the 2nd Plaintiff had offered to resign and that resignation was accepted and therefore she was not entitled to payment in lieu of notice or severance but was entitled to arrears, annual leave pay and pro‑rata end‑of‑year payment; Defendant's allegations of misconduct and conversion were not substantiated and the counterclaim failed; judgment awarded specified statutory sums to the plaintiffs and dismissed the counterclaim.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs in part; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for 1st Plaintiff against Defendant for HKD 28,678.10 (payment in lieu of notice HKD 15,000.00; arrears of salary HKD 3,387.00; outstanding annual leave pay HKD 5,000.00; pro-rata end-of-year payment HKD 5,291.10)
  • Judgment for 2nd Plaintiff against Defendant for HKD 22,736.10 (arrears of salary HKD 3,129.60; outstanding annual leave pay HKD 14,784.00; pro-rata end-of-year payment HKD 4,822.50)