WONG YUN SUN AND OTHERS v. WEARBEST GARMENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED

WONG YUN SUN AND OTHERS v. WEARBEST GARMENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED

The presiding officer erred in law by failing to investigate and make primary findings on the substantial evidence adduced to rebut the s31Q presumption of redundancy and by effectively relying solely on that presumption; because there were unresolved factual conflicts the High Court must remit the redundancy issue to the Labour Tribunal for rehearing rather than substitute findings of fact.

Citation
WONG YUN SUN AND OTHERS v. WEARBEST GARMENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED
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
HCA3731/1983
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal to High Court / Appeal Heard; Issue of Redundancy Remitted to Labour Tribunal for Rehearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; issue of redundancy remitted to the Labour Tribunal for a new hearing before a different presiding officer
Legal Topics
Redundancy, Severance Pay, Dismissal, Onus of Proof, Remission of Issues, Tribunal Procedure
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Labour Law Administrative Law Redundancy Severance Pay Dismissal Onus of Proof Remission of Issues +1 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 5 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 to High Court / Appeal Heard; Issue of Redundancy Remitted to Labour Tribunal for Rehearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether dismissal was by reason of redundancy under sections 31B and 31Q of the Employment Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the presiding officer properly investigated and made primary findings on evidence rebutting the statutory presumption of redundancy under s31Q
  3. 3 Whether the appellate court should make findings of primary fact or remit the issue for rehearing

Ratio Decidendi

The presiding officer erred in law by failing to investigate and make primary findings on the substantial evidence adduced to rebut the s31Q presumption of redundancy and by effectively relying solely on that presumption; because there were unresolved factual conflicts the High Court must remit the redundancy issue to the Labour Tribunal for rehearing rather than substitute findings of fact.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; issue of redundancy remitted to the Labour Tribunal for a new hearing before a different presiding officer

Orders

  • Pursuant to s35(1)(c) Labour Tribunal Ordinance the issue of redundancy is remitted to another presiding officer for a new hearing
  • No substitution of primary findings by this court due to unresolved conflicts of fact