羅秉強 對 實力工程有限公司
The Labour Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider the 'No Work No Pay' principle and commercial reasonableness in interpreting clauses 3 and 4 of the employment contract; the appeal is allowed and the claims for unpaid wages and payment in lieu of notice (and the employer's counterclaim) are remitted to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] HKCFI 866
- Parties
- Claimant (respondent): LAW PING KEUNG HELY (羅秉強); Defendant (appellant): SUNNIC ENGINEERING LIMITED (實力工程有限公司)
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 13 February 2026
- Case Number
- HCLA3/2025
- Procedural Posture
- Labour Tribunal Appeal to High Court / Decision on Appeal; Allowed in Part and Remitted to Labour Tribunal for Rehearing on Limited Issues
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to the Labour Tribunal for rehearing on limited issues; costs ordered against claimant
- Legal Topics
- Wages, Notice Pay, Interpretation of Employment Contract, Statutory Termination Under Employment Ordinance S.10 a, No Work No Pay Principle, Remittal for Rehearing
- Source Language
- ch
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
LAW PING KEUNG HELY (羅秉強)
Claimant (respondent)
SUNNIC ENGINEERING LIMITED (實力工程有限公司)
Defendant (appellant)
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal to High Court / Decision on Appeal; Allowed in Part and Remitted to Labour Tribunal for Rehearing on Limited Issues
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether employee is entitled to contractual wages for period of complete absence given contract terms and the 'No Work No Pay' principle
- 2 Whether the employee validly terminated the contract under Employment Ordinance s.10A by reason of unpaid wages and thus entitled to payment in lieu of notice
- 3 Whether the Labour Tribunal erred in law in its interpretation of clauses 3 and 4 of the employment contract and in failing to consider commercial reasonableness
Ratio Decidendi
The Labour Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider the 'No Work No Pay' principle and commercial reasonableness in interpreting clauses 3 and 4 of the employment contract; the appeal is allowed and the claims for unpaid wages and payment in lieu of notice (and the employer's counterclaim) are remitted to the Labour Tribunal for rehearing limited to whether, given the Tribunal's factual finding that the employee was absent from 1 January 2024, the employer is required to pay any wages under the correct legal approach (including 'No Work No Pay').
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to the Labour Tribunal for rehearing on limited issues; costs ordered against claimant
Orders
- Remit claimant's unpaid wages and payment in lieu of notice claims and defendant's counterclaim for payment in lieu of notice to the Labour Tribunal for rehearing limited to whether, given the factual finding that claimant was absent from 1 January 2024, the defendant is obliged to pay any wages applying the correct...
- Claimant to pay the costs of this appeal to the defendant
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment