CHIU SUET MAN v. LIFE YOUNG MEDICAL GROUP LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS LIFE YOUNG AESTHETIC MEDICAL LTD

CHIU SUET MAN v. LIFE YOUNG MEDICAL GROUP LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS LIFE YOUNG AESTHETIC MEDICAL LTD

The Court held the tribunal's determination was a factual, highly fact-sensitive assessment of words and conduct over 15-17 February 2022; the tribunal's conclusion that the 15 February email was a resignation with the question of waiver pending the employer's reply, and that Chiu's 17 February email validly gave one month's notice (last day 14 March), was a reasonable factual finding and not open to intervention; consequently the employer's 17 February email demanding payment in lieu was wrongful and the appeals were dismissed.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 3728
Parties
Claimant in HCLA 4/2023; Defendant in HCLA 5/2023: Life Young Medical Group Limited (formerly Life Young Aesthetic Medical Limited); Defendant in HCLA 4/2023; Claimant in HCLA 5/2023: Chiu Suet Man
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 December 2024
Case Number
HCLA5/2023
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / Appeal to Court of First Instance Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Resignation, Notice Period, Payment in Lieu, Termination, Construction of Notices, Standard of Appellate Review
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Contract Law Labour Procedure Resignation Notice Period Payment in Lieu Termination Construction of Notices +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Life Young Medical Group Limited (formerly Life Young Aesthetic Medical Limited)

Claimant in HCLA 4/2023; Defendant in HCLA 5/2023

Chiu Suet Man

Defendant in HCLA 4/2023; Claimant in HCLA 5/2023

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / Appeal to Court of First Instance Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 15 February 2022 email constituted an immediate termination of employment without notice
  2. 2 Whether an implied resignation arose from words and conduct
  3. 3 Whether the employer's 17 February 2022 email amounted to wrongful termination

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the tribunal's determination was a factual, highly fact-sensitive assessment of words and conduct over 15-17 February 2022; the tribunal's conclusion that the 15 February email was a resignation with the question of waiver pending the employer's reply, and that Chiu's 17 February email validly gave one month's notice (last day 14 March), was a reasonable factual finding and not open to intervention; consequently the employer's 17 February email demanding payment in lieu was wrongful and the appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Order nisi that the company pay the costs of Chiu in both appeals, including all reserved costs, to be taxed if not agreed
  • Order that Chiu's own costs be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations