HO KWOK KEUNG v. FURNITURE & HOUSEHOLDS SQUARE LTD

HO KWOK KEUNG v. FURNITURE & HOUSEHOLDS SQUARE LTD

The evidence on whether the dismissal was for cause (lateness) or for redundancy was ambiguous and incomplete; the Presiding Officer should have conducted further enquiries, including hearing the Claimant and investigating dismissal of other employees and relevant documents; accordingly the High Court granted leave to appeal and remitted the matter under s.35(1)(c) for further inquiry rather than deciding the merits on appeal.

Citation
HO KWOK KEUNG v. FURNITURE & HOUSEHOLDS SQUARE LTD
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Ho Kwok Keung; Defendant/appellant: Furniture & Households Square Ltd.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 December 1996
Case Number
HCLA113/1996
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal to High Court (employment/severance) / Appeal Hearing; Remitted to Presiding Officer for Further Enquiries Under S.35(1)(c) Labour Tribunal Ordinance
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal remitted to the Presiding Officer for further enquiries under s.35(1)(c) of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance; matter to be affirmed or varied depending on outcome of enquiries
Legal Topics
Severance Payment, Redundancy, Summary Dismissal, Waiver, Burden of Proof, Remittal
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Labour Law Tribunal Procedure Severance Payment Redundancy Summary Dismissal Waiver Burden of Proof +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 6 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ho Kwok Keung

Claimant/respondent

Furniture & Households Square Ltd.

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal to High Court (employment/severance) / Appeal Hearing; Remitted to Presiding Officer for Further Enquiries Under S.35(1)(c) Labour Tribunal Ordinance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employee was dismissed for redundancy under s.31B/s.31Q of the Employment Ordinance or for cause (persistent lateness)
  2. 2 Whether the warning letter of 3 January 1996 constituted a waiver of prior misconduct
  3. 3 Whether the Presiding Officer erred in procedure by not eliciting further evidence (including from the Claimant) and by relying on ambiguous evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence on whether the dismissal was for cause (lateness) or for redundancy was ambiguous and incomplete; the Presiding Officer should have conducted further enquiries, including hearing the Claimant and investigating dismissal of other employees and relevant documents; accordingly the High Court granted leave to appeal and remitted the matter under s.35(1)(c) for further inquiry rather than deciding the merits on appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal remitted to the Presiding Officer for further enquiries under s.35(1)(c) of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance; matter to be affirmed or varied depending on outcome of enquiries

Orders

  • Grant leave to appeal
  • Remit the case to the Presiding Officer pursuant to s.35(1)(c) Labour Tribunal Ordinance to conduct further enquiries on lateness, the warning letter, dismissal of other employees and relevant documents