YING KEE SAFES AND FURNITURE LIMITED v. WONG YAM TAK

YING KEE SAFES AND FURNITURE LIMITED v. WONG YAM TAK

The court found on the totality of the evidence that there were fixed reporting times (supported by warnings and introduction of a punch card system), the claimant was persistently late (approximately 40% of working days in January), and wilfully disobeyed lawful orders; that conduct and attitude amounted to a fundamental breach justifying summary dismissal, and the Presiding Officer erred in finding no fixed hours or waiver of dismissal.

Citation
YING KEE SAFES AND FURNITURE LIMITED v. WONG YAM TAK
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Ying Kee Safes and Furniture Limited; Respondent/claimant: Wong Yam Tak
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 November 1995
Case Number
HCLA105/1995
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / Appeal to High Court — Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Summary Dismissal, Persistent Lateness, Misconduct, Fixed Working Hours, Waiver, Costs
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Labour Law Contract Law Summary Dismissal Persistent Lateness Misconduct Fixed Working Hours Waiver +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ying Kee Safes and Furniture Limited

Appellant/defendant

Wong Yam Tak

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / Appeal to High Court — Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer was entitled to summarily dismiss for persistent lateness and willful disobedience of a lawful order
  2. 2 Whether there were fixed working hours such that lateness constituted misconduct
  3. 3 Whether the employer had waived the right to dismiss by previous conduct or warnings

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the totality of the evidence that there were fixed reporting times (supported by warnings and introduction of a punch card system), the claimant was persistently late (approximately 40% of working days in January), and wilfully disobeyed lawful orders; that conduct and attitude amounted to a fundamental breach justifying summary dismissal, and the Presiding Officer erred in finding no fixed hours or waiver of dismissal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Costs to the defendant, to include costs of the application for leave to appeal