LEE YUET HO v. HING YIP KNITTERS O/B WAYLOY INVESTMENT LTD.

LEE YUET HO v. HING YIP KNITTERS O/B WAYLOY INVESTMENT LTD.

The Presiding Officer's factual findings that a long‑standing oral agreement allowed the employee to start around 11:30 a.m., that there was no binding variation to a 10:00 a.m. start, and that June 1999 wage deductions constituted an effective compromise with consideration, meant there was no lawful basis for summary dismissal; therefore leave to appeal is refused.

Citation
LEE YUET HO v. HING YIP KNITTERS O/B WAYLOY INVESTMENT LTD.
Parties
Claimant (respondent): Lee Yuet Ho; Defendant (appellant): Hing Yip Knitters O/B Wayloy Investment Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 May 2000
Case Number
HCLA26/2000
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Dismissal, Variation of Working Hours, Compromise and Consideration, Statutory Wage Deductions, Evidence and Findings of Fact
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Contract Law Labour Law Summary Dismissal Variation of Working Hours Compromise and Consideration Statutory Wage Deductions Evidence and Findings of Fact

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Yuet Ho

Claimant (respondent)

Hing Yip Knitters O/B Wayloy Investment Limited

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer was justified in summary dismissal under s.9 Employment Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether a long‑standing oral agreement fixed the employee's start time at around 11:30 a.m.
  3. 3 Whether the June 1999 wage‑deduction agreement was supported by consideration or void

Ratio Decidendi

The Presiding Officer's factual findings that a long‑standing oral agreement allowed the employee to start around 11:30 a.m., that there was no binding variation to a 10:00 a.m. start, and that June 1999 wage deductions constituted an effective compromise with consideration, meant there was no lawful basis for summary dismissal; therefore leave to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed