MOHAMMAD JAVID v. MADA CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING LTD.

MOHAMMAD JAVID v. MADA CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING LTD.

Leave to appeal was granted because the Presiding Officer's decision disclosed arguable errors of law and inadequate fact‑finding: failure to apply para 3(2)(b) to continuity, failure to investigate the nature of the absences, and failure to consider evidence that employment subsisted on 15 October 2001, thereby justifying appellate consideration.

Citation
MOHAMMAD JAVID v. MADA CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING LTD.
Parties
Claimant: Mohammad Javid; Defendant: Mada Construction & Engineering Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 August 2002
Case Number
HCLA47/2002
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Granted
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted on the grounds specified by the court.
Legal Topics
Continuity of Employment, Wages in Lieu of Notice, Leave of Absence, Fact‑finding Deficiencies, Grounds for Leave to Appeal
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Labour Law Appeal Continuity of Employment Wages in Lieu of Notice Leave of Absence Fact‑finding Deficiencies Grounds for Leave to Appeal

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Javid

Claimant

Mada Construction & Engineering Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Presiding Officer erred in law by failing to have regard to para 3(2)(b) of the First Schedule of the Employment Ordinance when determining continuity of employment
  2. 2 Whether the Presiding Officer failed to investigate adequately the claimant's assertion that four absences were authorised leave and one was due to lack of work
  3. 3 Whether the Presiding Officer wrongly dismissed the claimant's claim for wages in lieu of notice by not considering that the claimant worked on 15 October 2001 and thus employment was still subsisting

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted because the Presiding Officer's decision disclosed arguable errors of law and inadequate fact‑finding: failure to apply para 3(2)(b) to continuity, failure to investigate the nature of the absences, and failure to consider evidence that employment subsisted on 15 October 2001, thereby justifying appellate consideration.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted on the grounds specified by the court.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted on grounds (1)–(3) as set out by Deputy High Court Judge M H Lam dated 26 August 2002.