羅秉強 對 實力工程有限公司

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
Employment Contract Civil Procedure Wages Notice Pay Interpretation of Employment Contract Statutory Termination Under Employment Ordinance S.10 a No Work No Pay Principle +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether employee is entitled to contractual wages for period of complete absence given contract terms and the 'No Work No Pay' principle
  2. 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. 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