HUNG CHI KUEN v. ASSOCIATED TOURIST COACH LTD.

HUNG CHI KUEN v. ASSOCIATED TOURIST COACH LTD.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Presiding Officer’s factual findings that the alleged misconduct was of minor character and insufficiently grave for summary dismissal were supported by the evidence, the alleged incidents were too remote in time for their cumulative effect to justify dismissal, and any dispute about burden of proof was immaterial where the tribunal reached firm factual conclusions.

Citation
HUNG CHI KUEN v. ASSOCIATED TOURIST COACH LTD.
Parties
Claimant (respondent): Hung Chi Kuen; Defendant (appellant): Associated Tourist Coach Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 January 2001
Case Number
HCLA86/2000
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal (high Court, Court of First Instance) / Application for Leave to Appeal Under Section 32 of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance
Outcome
Defendant's application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Dismissal, Burden of Proof, Cumulative Misconduct, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Labour Law Administrative Law Summary Dismissal Burden of Proof Cumulative Misconduct Leave to Appeal

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

Hung Chi Kuen

Claimant (respondent)

Associated Tourist Coach Limited

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal (high Court, Court of First Instance) / Application for Leave to Appeal Under Section 32 of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Presiding Officer erred in law in failing to find summary dismissal justified under section 9 of the Employment Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the burden of proof lies on the employer to justify summary dismissal or on the employee to prove wrongful dismissal
  3. 3 Whether the cumulative effect of separate incidents justified immediate dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Presiding Officer’s factual findings that the alleged misconduct was of minor character and insufficiently grave for summary dismissal were supported by the evidence, the alleged incidents were too remote in time for their cumulative effect to justify dismissal, and any dispute about burden of proof was immaterial where the tribunal reached firm factual conclusions.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed