KING\'S FLAIR DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CHOI LAI CHING

KING\'S FLAIR DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CHOI LAI CHING

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no relevant arguable point of law: the Tribunal made a factual finding that the claimant was summarily dismissed and did not waive notice; Section 8A of the Employment Ordinance applied to award damages; the Presiding Officer acted within discretion in proceeding without further enquiries where the employer failed to produce the managing director as a witness.

Citation
KING\'S FLAIR DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CHOI LAI CHING
Parties
Appellant/defendant: KING S FLAIR DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; Respondent/claimant: CHOI LAI CHING
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 June 1999
Case Number
HCLA37/1999
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal No. 37 of 1999 (high Court, Court of First Instance) / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Resignation, Payment in Lieu of Notice, Waiver of Notice, Summary Dismissal, Leave to Appeal, Duty to Investigate, Tribunal Discretion
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Resignation Payment in Lieu of Notice Waiver of Notice Summary Dismissal Leave to Appeal +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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KING S FLAIR DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Appellant/defendant

CHOI LAI CHING

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal No. 37 of 1999 (high Court, Court of First Instance) / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 21 November 1998 "Final Remuneration" document constituted a binding agreement
  2. 2 Whether the claimant waived notice and payment in lieu of notice
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was summarily dismissed

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no relevant arguable point of law: the Tribunal made a factual finding that the claimant was summarily dismissed and did not waive notice; Section 8A of the Employment Ordinance applied to award damages; the Presiding Officer acted within discretion in proceeding without further enquiries where the employer failed to produce the managing director as a witness.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.