MALLORCA JOENALYN DOMINGO v. NG MEI SHUEN

MALLORCA JOENALYN DOMINGO v. NG MEI SHUEN

Leave to appeal was granted because the appellant established arguable grounds that the Presiding Officer may have erred in law and fact on key issues — notably the finding that the Hurting Allegation justified summary dismissal given apparent late raising of the allegation, lack of medical/police evidence and credibility concerns; and whether the signed Settlement Agreement/Letter of Reference effected a waiver or election to pay in lieu — such that an appeal is arguable. Leave was refused on the ground relating to pre-judgment interest (Ground 3).

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 589
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mallorca Joenalyn Domingo; Defendant/respondent: Ng Mei Shuen
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 April 2020
Case Number
HCLA17/2019
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal (high Court Appeal From Labour Tribunal) / Application for Leave to Appeal (paper Disposal)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal GRANTED on Grounds 1,2,4,5 and 6; leave REFUSED on Ground 3 (pre-judgment interest)
Legal Topics
Summary Dismissal, Waiver, Standard of Proof, Credibility Assessment, Leave to Appeal, Pre Judgment Interest, Damages for Breach of Trust, Costs
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Labour Law Evidence Contract Law Civil Procedure Summary Dismissal Waiver Standard of Proof +5 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mallorca Joenalyn Domingo

Claimant/appellant

Ng Mei Shuen

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal (high Court Appeal From Labour Tribunal) / Application for Leave to Appeal (paper Disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Presiding Officer applied the correct burden and standard of proof in finding the employer had proved serious misconduct (Hurting Allegation)
  2. 2 Whether the finding on credibility was perverse or irrational given alleged late fabrication and lack of medical/police evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Settlement Agreement and Letter of Reference constituted waiver or election by the employer to pay in lieu of notice

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted because the appellant established arguable grounds that the Presiding Officer may have erred in law and fact on key issues — notably the finding that the Hurting Allegation justified summary dismissal given apparent late raising of the allegation, lack of medical/police evidence and credibility concerns; and whether the signed Settlement Agreement/Letter of Reference effected a waiver or election to pay in lieu — such that an appeal is arguable. Leave was refused on the ground relating to pre-judgment interest (Ground 3).

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal GRANTED on Grounds 1,2,4,5 and 6; leave REFUSED on Ground 3 (pre-judgment interest)

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted in respect of Grounds 1,2,4,5 and 6 and refused in respect of Ground 3