LEE KAM CHAN v. LONGWOOD INDUSTRIES LTD.

LEE KAM CHAN v. LONGWOOD INDUSTRIES LTD.

The Presiding Officer was not entitled to assume, without confirming at the hearing, that the employers were not relying on the right of summary dismissal under s9; the employers should have been permitted to present that case. However, because the employers had not obtained an extension of time for leave to appeal, the Deputy Judge's grant of leave was a nullity; accordingly the High Court set aside that order and adjourned the appeal pending any application to the Registrar for extension of time and remitted the s9 issue back to the Labour Tribunal to be heard by the original Presiding Officer.

Citation
LEE KAM CHAN v. LONGWOOD INDUSTRIES LTD.
Parties
Claimant/employee: Lee Kam Chan; Defendant/employer: Longwood Industries Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 November 1996
Case Number
HCLA103/1996
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal to High Court / Hearing on Jurisdiction and Merits (adjourned Pending Extension Application)
Outcome
Order of Deputy Judge Pang dated 12 August 1996 set aside as nullity; appeal adjourned pending any application to Registrar for extension of time; matter remitted to Labour Tribunal for determination of entitlement to summary dismissal under s9 and remitted hearing to be before original Presiding Officer.
Legal Topics
Summary Dismissal, Notice Period, Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time, Labour Tribunal Procedure, Remittal
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Summary Dismissal Notice Period Leave to Appeal Extension of Time Labour Tribunal Procedure +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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Kam Chan

Claimant/employee

Longwood Industries Limited

Defendant/employer

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal to High Court / Hearing on Jurisdiction and Merits (adjourned Pending Extension Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Presiding Officer prevented the employers from raising entitlement to summary dismissal under s9 Employment Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Presiding Officer was entitled to assume the employers were not relying on summary dismissal despite allegations in the Statement of Defence
  3. 3 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction because leave to appeal was applied for out of time and no extension had been granted

Ratio Decidendi

The Presiding Officer was not entitled to assume, without confirming at the hearing, that the employers were not relying on the right of summary dismissal under s9; the employers should have been permitted to present that case. However, because the employers had not obtained an extension of time for leave to appeal, the Deputy Judge's grant of leave was a nullity; accordingly the High Court set aside that order and adjourned the appeal pending any application to the Registrar for extension of time and remitted the s9 issue back to the Labour Tribunal to be heard by the original Presiding Officer.

Court Disposition

Order of Deputy Judge Pang dated 12 August 1996 set aside as nullity; appeal adjourned pending any application to Registrar for extension of time; matter remitted to Labour Tribunal for determination of entitlement to summary dismissal under s9 and remitted hearing to be before original Presiding Officer.

Orders

  • Set aside order of Deputy Judge Pang dated 12 August 1996 (nullity)
  • Adjourned the appeal to a date to be fixed with a time estimate of 0.25 hours pending any application by the employers to the Registrar for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal