MILLIES SHOES FACTORY LTD v. LO SIK KWONG AND OTHERS

MILLIES SHOES FACTORY LTD v. LO SIK KWONG AND OTHERS

Section 31E is confined to contracts where pay depends on provision of work and there is no guaranteed minimum; the four-week period must be defined by the statutory meaning of 'week' (Sunday-Saturday), and lay-off is established by counting idle (wageless) days within that period excluding rest days, holidays and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MILLIES SHOES FACTORY LTD v. LO SIK KWONG AND OTHERS
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Millies Shoes Factory Limited; 1st Respondent/claimant: Lo Sik-Kwong; Respondent/claimant: 2nd Respondent; Respondent/claimant: 3rd Respondent; Respondent/claimant: 4th Respondent; Respondent/claimant: 5th Respondent; Respondent/claimant: 6th Respondent; Respondent/claimant: 7th Respondent; Respondent/claimant: 8th Respondent
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 July 1984
Case Number
HCLA42/1983
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Industrial Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal (decision Rendered)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Lay Off, Severance Payment, Redundancy, Constructive Dismissal, Definition of "week", Contractual Right to Suspend Employment
Source Language
en
Employment Law Contract Law Labour Law Statutory Interpretation Lay Off Severance Payment Redundancy Constructive Dismissal +2 more

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

Millies Shoes Factory Limited

Appellant/defendant

Lo Sik-Kwong

1st Respondent/claimant

2nd Respondent

Respondent/claimant

3rd Respondent

Respondent/claimant

4th Respondent

Respondent/claimant

5th Respondent

Respondent/claimant

6th Respondent

Respondent/claimant

7th Respondent

Respondent/claimant

8th Respondent

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Industrial Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal (decision Rendered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employees were "laid off" within meaning of section 31E of the Employment Ordinance
  2. 2 How to determine the relevant period of four consecutive weeks for s.31E (definition of 'week')
  3. 3 Whether s.31E applies only to contracts permitting lay-off without pay (no guaranteed minimum wage)

Ratio Decidendi

Section 31E is confined to contracts where pay depends on provision of work and there is no guaranteed minimum; the four-week period must be defined by the statutory meaning of 'week' (Sunday-Saturday), and lay-off is established by counting idle (wageless) days within that period excluding rest days, holidays and lockouts — if at least 12 such idle days occur the employee is laid off; where no contractual right to lay-off exists the employer's suspension is a repudiatory breach giving rise to constructive dismissal and entitlement under s.31B(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Original awards upheld: seven respondents entitled to severance payments; one respondent (insufficient length of service) entitled to wages in lieu of notice