SUEN LAI SUET AND OTHERS v. OWNFIELD GARMENT MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.

SUEN LAI SUET AND OTHERS v. OWNFIELD GARMENT MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.

The appeal was allowed because the Presiding Officer erred in law by failing to advise the appellant to call known corroborative witnesses where that failure materially affected the credibility assessment of the appellant's defence; the error warranted setting aside the award and remitting the matter to the Labour...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
SUEN LAI SUET AND OTHERS v. OWNFIELD GARMENT MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.
Parties
1st Respondent/claimant: Suen Lai Suet; 2nd Respondent/claimant: Chan Kwai Ching; 3rd Respondent/claimant: Kwok Lai Ming; 4th Respondent/claimant: Tsoi Mei Ha; 5th Respondent/claimant: Lee Wai Ying; 6th Respondent/claimant: Chau Chiu Yin; 7th Respondent/claimant: Lam Sau Chuk; 8th Respondent/claimant: Lam Sau King; Appellant/defendant: Ownfield Garment Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 July 1997
Case Number
HCLA29/1996
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / Appeal to High Court (judgment Remitting Matter to Tribunal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; award of the Presiding Officer set aside; matter remitted to the Labour Tribunal to be heard by another Presiding Officer; order nisi for costs in favour of the appellant against all respondents; costs of 4th and 6th respondents to be taxed under Legal Aid Regulations
Legal Topics
Lay Off, Constructive Dismissal, Statutory Payment, Presiding Officer Duty to Investigate, Appeal Against Factual Findings, Inquisitorial Proceedings
Source Language
en
Employment Law Labour Tribunal Procedure Civil Procedure Lay Off Constructive Dismissal Statutory Payment Presiding Officer Duty to Investigate Appeal Against Factual Findings +1 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suen Lai Suet

1st Respondent/claimant

Chan Kwai Ching

2nd Respondent/claimant

Kwok Lai Ming

3rd Respondent/claimant

Tsoi Mei Ha

4th Respondent/claimant

Lee Wai Ying

5th Respondent/claimant

Chau Chiu Yin

6th Respondent/claimant

Lam Sau Chuk

7th Respondent/claimant

Lam Sau King

8th Respondent/claimant

Ownfield Garment Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / Appeal to High Court (judgment Remitting Matter to Tribunal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the employer offered a conditional installment payment and whether that offer was made to the respondents
  2. 2 whether the Presiding Officer breached his inquisitorial duty by failing to advise the appellant to call available corroborative witnesses
  3. 3 whether a mere offer, if made, precludes operation of s.31E of the Employment Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the Presiding Officer erred in law by failing to advise the appellant to call known corroborative witnesses where that failure materially affected the credibility assessment of the appellant's defence; the error warranted setting aside the award and remitting the matter to the Labour Tribunal for rehearing by a different presiding officer.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; award of the Presiding Officer set aside; matter remitted to the Labour Tribunal to be heard by another Presiding Officer; order nisi for costs in favour of the appellant against all respondents; costs of 4th and 6th respondents to be taxed under Legal Aid Regulations

Orders

  • Award made by the Presiding Officer on 1 February 1996 set aside
  • Case remitted to the Labour Tribunal to be heard by another Presiding Officer