YEE LEE SEA-LAND FORWARDING CO LTD v. YIP LING TO AND OTHERS

YEE LEE SEA-LAND FORWARDING CO LTD v. YIP LING TO AND OTHERS

Leave to appeal was granted because the question of the legal meaning of "continuous" employment under the Ordinance and attendant burden of proof was arguable and properly the subject of appellate determination; permission was also granted to seek remission to the tribunal for reassessment of the severance amount; the factual finding that the claimants were employees was abandoned as a ground and left undisturbed.

Citation
YEE LEE SEA-LAND FORWARDING CO LTD v. YIP LING TO AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant/defendant: Yee Lee Sea-Land Forwarding Company Limited; Respondent/claimant: Yip Ling To; Respondent/claimant: Leung Siu Bor; Respondent/claimant: Wong Chun Ming (C7); Respondent/claimant: 9 others
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 June 1984
Case Number
HCLA13/1984
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal No. 13 of 1984 / Application for Leave to Appeal (decision on Severance Pay)
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted limited to issues concerning the meaning of "continuous" employment under the Ordinance and related burden of proof; leave to raise remission to the tribunal for reassessment of the severance amount; factual challenge abandoned.
Legal Topics
Severance Pay, Continuous Employment, Burden of Proof, Remission to Tribunal, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
EN
Labour Law Civil Procedure Appeals Severance Pay Continuous Employment Burden of Proof Remission to Tribunal Leave to Appeal

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yee Lee Sea-Land Forwarding Company Limited

Applicant/defendant

Yip Ling To

Respondent/claimant

Leung Siu Bor

Respondent/claimant

Wong Chun Ming (C7)

Respondent/claimant

9 others

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal No. 13 of 1984 / Application for Leave to Appeal (decision on Severance Pay)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the meaning of "continuous" employment under the Ordinance?
  2. 2 Where does the burden of proof lie on continuous employment?
  3. 3 Whether casual or daily-rate employment can constitute continuous employment and whether the matter should be remitted to the tribunal for reassessment of severance amount

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted because the question of the legal meaning of "continuous" employment under the Ordinance and attendant burden of proof was arguable and properly the subject of appellate determination; permission was also granted to seek remission to the tribunal for reassessment of the severance amount; the factual finding that the claimants were employees was abandoned as a ground and left undisturbed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted limited to issues concerning the meaning of "continuous" employment under the Ordinance and related burden of proof; leave to raise remission to the tribunal for reassessment of the severance amount; factual challenge abandoned.

Orders

  • Grant leave to appeal on the question of the meaning of "continuous" within the Ordinance and related burden of proof.
  • Grant leave for the appellant to raise at the hearing of the appeal the question of remission to the tribunal for reassessment of the severance amount.