CHAN SUK BING ANGIE v. HABOUR PHOENIX LTD. AND ANOTHER

CHAN SUK BING ANGIE v. HABOUR PHOENIX LTD. AND ANOTHER

The appeal is allowed because the presiding officer failed to discharge the statutory duty under s.20(3) to investigate relevant undisputed facts (including closure of the packaging section, payments of severance to packers, absence of independent evidence of a replacement and reliance on an unverified letter), and thus could not properly be satisfied that the presumption of redundancy had been rebutted; matter remitted for rehearing before a different presiding officer.

Citation
CHAN SUK BING ANGIE v. HABOUR PHOENIX LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Chan Suk Bing, Angie; 1st Defendant/1st Respondent: Habour Phoenix Limited; 2nd Defendant/2nd Respondent: Wilkinson Foods (HK) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 September 1992
Case Number
HCLA46/1991
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal (severance Payment) / Judgment on Appeal Remitting Matter to Labour Tribunal for Rehearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim for severance payment remitted to the Labour Tribunal for a new hearing before a different presiding officer; no order as to costs of the appeal
Legal Topics
Severance Payment, Presumption of Redundancy, Statutory Duty to Investigate (s.20(3)), Scope of Appellate Review
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Labour Tribunal Procedure Redundancy Law Severance Payment Presumption of Redundancy Statutory Duty to Investigate (s.20(3)) Scope of Appellate Review

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Suk Bing, Angie

Claimant/applicant

Habour Phoenix Limited

1st Defendant/1st Respondent

Wilkinson Foods (HK) Limited

2nd Defendant/2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal (severance Payment) / Judgment on Appeal Remitting Matter to Labour Tribunal for Rehearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presiding officer failed to discharge the statutory duty under s.20(3) of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance to investigate relevant matters
  2. 2 Whether the employer rebutted the statutory presumption of redundancy
  3. 3 Extent to which an appellate court may review a presiding officer's determination of relevance despite s.35(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because the presiding officer failed to discharge the statutory duty under s.20(3) to investigate relevant undisputed facts (including closure of the packaging section, payments of severance to packers, absence of independent evidence of a replacement and reliance on an unverified letter), and thus could not properly be satisfied that the presumption of redundancy had been rebutted; matter remitted for rehearing before a different presiding officer.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim for severance payment remitted to the Labour Tribunal for a new hearing before a different presiding officer; no order as to costs of the appeal

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Claim for severance payment remitted to the Labour Tribunal for a new hearing before a different presiding officer