陳妙玲 對 蔡淑虞經營森記廚房

陳妙玲 對 蔡淑虞經營森記廚房

The arbitrator made a factual finding that, on the evidence (short, part-time, low-skilled employment of about two weeks), one day was a reasonable notice period; that finding involved no legal error nor excess of jurisdiction under s31(1) Cap.453, so leave to appeal was properly refused.

Citation
陳妙玲 對 蔡淑虞經營森記廚房
Parties
Applicant (appellant): Chan Miu-ling / 陳妙玲; Respondent (defendant): CHOI Suk-yu t/a Sum Kee Restaurant / 蔡淑虞經營森記廚房
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 July 2015
Case Number
HCME1/2015
Procedural Posture
Small Employment Claims Arbitration Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Termination Notice, Reasonable Notice, Jurisdiction to Appeal, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
CH
Employment Law Contract Law Arbitration Procedure Termination Notice Reasonable Notice Jurisdiction to Appeal 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Miu-ling / 陳妙玲

Applicant (appellant)

CHOI Suk-yu t/a Sum Kee Restaurant / 蔡淑虞經營森記廚房

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Small Employment Claims Arbitration Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an employment contract silent on notice requires reasonable notice at common law
  2. 2 What is the length of reasonable notice in the circumstances (whether one day was reasonable)
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator made an error of law or exceeded jurisdiction such that leave to appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator made a factual finding that, on the evidence (short, part-time, low-skilled employment of about two weeks), one day was a reasonable notice period; that finding involved no legal error nor excess of jurisdiction under s31(1) Cap.453, so leave to appeal was properly refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused (application dated 21 May 2015).