PAK YUK KAY t/a MEI HOUSE v. TSANG YUK SIM

PAK YUK KAY t/a MEI HOUSE v. TSANG YUK SIM

The appellate court set aside the Labour Tribunal's award of the end-year payment to the extent of HK$4,000 and remitted the matter for rehearing because the Tribunal had not properly determined whether pro rata payment was a contractual term or whether the employer's actions constituted wrongful dismissal which would engage s.11F; those factual and legal issues must be determined before a final entitlement can be ordered.

Citation
PAK YUK KAY t/a MEI HOUSE v. TSANG YUK SIM
Parties
Applicant/appellant/defendant: PAK YUK KAY trading as MEI HOUSE; Respondent/claimant: TSANG YUK SIM
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 March 1992
Case Number
HCLA47/1991
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal to High Court (labour Tribunal Appeal No.47 of 1991) / Judgment on Appeal Delivered 20 March 1992
Outcome
Order of the Presiding Officer dated 21 October 1991 set aside to the extent of HK$4,000 and remitted for rehearing on specified issues; costs awarded as set out below.
Legal Topics
Termination, End Year Payment, Wrongful Dismissal, Statutory Pro Rata Payment (s.11 F), Interpretation of Employment Contract
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Labour Law Contract Law Termination End Year Payment Wrongful Dismissal Statutory Pro Rata Payment (s.11 F) Interpretation of Employment Contract

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PAK YUK KAY trading as MEI HOUSE

Applicant/appellant/defendant

TSANG YUK SIM

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal to High Court (labour Tribunal Appeal No.47 of 1991) / Judgment on Appeal Delivered 20 March 1992

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to a proportionate end-year (triple) payment
  2. 2 Whether the contract of employment contained a term entitling pro rata payment
  3. 3 Whether s.11F of the Employment Ordinance applies given the employee gave notice under s.6/s.7

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court set aside the Labour Tribunal's award of the end-year payment to the extent of HK$4,000 and remitted the matter for rehearing because the Tribunal had not properly determined whether pro rata payment was a contractual term or whether the employer's actions constituted wrongful dismissal which would engage s.11F; those factual and legal issues must be determined before a final entitlement can be ordered.

Court Disposition

Order of the Presiding Officer dated 21 October 1991 set aside to the extent of HK$4,000 and remitted for rehearing on specified issues; costs awarded as set out below.

Orders

  • Order of Presiding Officer dated 21 October 1991 set aside to the extent of HK$4,000 representing the end-year (triple) payment
  • Remit to the Presiding Officer for rehearing and determination of (1) whether payment of the end-year payment is conditional on completion of a full year's service and if not the precise contractual terms, and (2) whether there was wrongful dismissal by the applicant and whether the respondent accepted any repudiation