OR LOY YAU AND OTHERS v. LAU HING WAN t/a YAT SHING CONSTRUCTION CO

OR LOY YAU AND OTHERS v. LAU HING WAN t/a YAT SHING CONSTRUCTION CO

The High Court dismissed the appeal because the Presiding Officer's central finding—that the employer granted permission for extended Chinese New Year leave and thus dismissed the respondents wrongfully—was supported by evidence and permissible inferences; inconsistencies in dates and witness statements did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
OR LOY YAU AND OTHERS v. LAU HING WAN t/a YAT SHING CONSTRUCTION CO
Parties
1st Claimant/respondent: OR LOY YAU; 2nd Claimant/respondent: CHOI KAM YEE; 3rd Claimant/respondent: ON KA CHUEN; 4th Claimant/respondent: CHUNG TO KAN; 5th Claimant/respondent: OR SHU SHING; 6th Claimant/respondent: LAM SHUN; Defendant/appellant: LAU HING WAN trading as YAT SHING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 April 1984
Case Number
HCLA59/1983
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal (leave to Appeal Granted)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Wrongful Dismissal, Holiday Pay, Wages in Lieu of Notice, Leave and Permission to Take Leave, Weight of Evidence, Procedural Limits on Appeals
Source Language
en
Labour Law Employment Law Appellate Review Wrongful Dismissal Holiday Pay Wages in Lieu of Notice Leave and Permission to Take Leave Weight of Evidence +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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OR LOY YAU

1st Claimant/respondent

CHOI KAM YEE

2nd Claimant/respondent

ON KA CHUEN

3rd Claimant/respondent

CHUNG TO KAN

4th Claimant/respondent

OR SHU SHING

5th Claimant/respondent

LAM SHUN

6th Claimant/respondent

LAU HING WAN trading as YAT SHING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal (leave to Appeal Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were wrongfully dismissed
  2. 2 Whether the employer had given permission for extended Chinese New Year leave
  3. 3 Whether the Presiding Officer's findings were against the weight of the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court dismissed the appeal because the Presiding Officer's central finding—that the employer granted permission for extended Chinese New Year leave and thus dismissed the respondents wrongfully—was supported by evidence and permissible inferences; inconsistencies in dates and witness statements did not render the tribunal's factual conclusions so unsupported as to warrant reversal under the Labour Tribunal Ordinance.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant's appeal dismissed
  • Award of the Labour Tribunal dated 7 July 1983 in favour of the respondents in the total sum of $27,133 upheld