WONG YUN SUN AND OTHERS v. WEARBEST GARMENT MANUFACTURING CO LTD

WONG YUN SUN AND OTHERS v. WEARBEST GARMENT MANUFACTURING CO LTD

The presiding officer committed an error of law by failing to investigate and make primary findings on the substantial and contested evidence relevant to whether the dismissal was by reason of redundancy, and by effectively relying solely on the presumption under section 31Q; the appropriate remedy is to remit the redundancy issue to the Labour Tribunal for a new hearing before a different presiding officer.

Citation
WONG YUN SUN AND OTHERS v. WEARBEST GARMENT MANUFACTURING CO LTD
Parties
1st Claimant / Respondent: WONG YUN SUN; 2nd Claimant: TING HANG LIN; 3rd Claimant: NG AH YEE; Appellant / Defendant: WEARBEST GARMENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 July 1984
Case Number
HCLA2/1984
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / High Court Appeal Remitted Issue of Redundancy to Labour Tribunal for Rehearing Before a Different Presiding Officer
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; award of severance pay set aside for reconsideration and issue remitted to Labour Tribunal
Legal Topics
Redundancy, Severance Pay, Dismissal, Presumption of Redundancy (s31 Q), Onus of Proof, Remission for Rehearing
Source Language
EN
Labour Law Employment Law Tribunal Procedure Administrative Law Redundancy Severance Pay Dismissal Presumption of Redundancy (s31 Q) +2 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WONG YUN SUN

1st Claimant / Respondent

TING HANG LIN

2nd Claimant

NG AH YEE

3rd Claimant

WEARBEST GARMENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED

Appellant / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / High Court Appeal Remitted Issue of Redundancy to Labour Tribunal for Rehearing Before a Different Presiding Officer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal was by reason of redundancy
  2. 2 Whether the presiding officer erred by relying solely on the presumption under section 31Q of the Employment Ordinance without adequately investigating evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant rebutted the presumption by documentary and wage records

Ratio Decidendi

The presiding officer committed an error of law by failing to investigate and make primary findings on the substantial and contested evidence relevant to whether the dismissal was by reason of redundancy, and by effectively relying solely on the presumption under section 31Q; the appropriate remedy is to remit the redundancy issue to the Labour Tribunal for a new hearing before a different presiding officer.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; award of severance pay set aside for reconsideration and issue remitted to Labour Tribunal

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part and decision on severance payment set aside as a result of error of law in failing to investigate and make findings on redundancy evidence
  • Issue of whether dismissal was by reason of redundancy remitted to the Labour Tribunal for a new hearing before a different presiding officer pursuant to section 35(1)(c) of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance