HANG FOOK LAU SEAFOOD RESTAURANT o/b COME KOON INVESTMENT LTD. v. KWOK SIK YUEN

HANG FOOK LAU SEAFOOD RESTAURANT o/b COME KOON INVESTMENT LTD. v. KWOK SIK YUEN

Clause 6 was void under s.70 because it reduced the employee's statutory right to choose whether to work on rest days; s.20 applies only to requests during employment and not to pre-contract impositions; therefore the employee was entitled to pay for 46 rest days at a daily rate of $500 (derived from monthly salary $15,000), totaling $23,000; appeal dismissed.

Citation
HANG FOOK LAU SEAFOOD RESTAURANT o/b COME KOON INVESTMENT LTD. v. KWOK SIK YUEN
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Hang Fook Lau Seafood Restaurant o/b Come Koon Investment Ltd; Respondent (claimant): Kwok Sik Yuen
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 April 2000
Case Number
HCLA2/2000
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Heard 18 April 2000; Decision 18 April 2000; Reasons Handed 26 April 2000
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rest Days, Voluntary Work on Rest Days, Statutory Rights Under Employment Ordinance, Void Contract Terms Under Statute, Pay in Lieu of Rest Days, Calculation of Statutory Entitlement
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Contract Law Rest Days Voluntary Work on Rest Days Statutory Rights Under Employment Ordinance Void Contract Terms Under Statute Pay in Lieu of Rest Days Calculation of Statutory Entitlement

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 6 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hang Fook Lau Seafood Restaurant o/b Come Koon Investment Ltd

Appellant (defendant)

Kwok Sik Yuen

Respondent (claimant)

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Heard 18 April 2000; Decision 18 April 2000; Reasons Handed 26 April 2000

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Clause 6 of the employment contract requiring work on rest days is void under s.70 of the Employment Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether pre-contract agreement to work on rest days qualifies as voluntary work under s.20
  3. 3 Whether the employee would be receiving double payment if awarded pay for rest days already reflected in basic salary

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 6 was void under s.70 because it reduced the employee's statutory right to choose whether to work on rest days; s.20 applies only to requests during employment and not to pre-contract impositions; therefore the employee was entitled to pay for 46 rest days at a daily rate of $500 (derived from monthly salary $15,000), totaling $23,000; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Respondent's award of $23,000 for 46 rest days upheld