YIP PAK HUNG v. YPT INTERNATIONAL LTD

YIP PAK HUNG v. YPT INTERNATIONAL LTD

The appeal is allowed because the Presiding Officer improperly supplemented a concluded TST 733 award while leave to appeal was pending and proceeded without adequate regard to written statements and proper evidential procedure; the defective process created a real risk that prior conclusions coloured subsequent determinations and accordingly the award in 733 is set aside and the matter remitted for readjudication by a different Presiding Officer.

Citation
YIP PAK HUNG v. YPT INTERNATIONAL LTD
Parties
Respondent/claimant: YIP PAK HUNG; Appellant/defendant: YPT INTERNATIONAL LTD.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 February 1990
Case Number
HCLA46/1989
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal to High Court / Appeal Judgment (remittal Ordered)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; award and purported supplemental award in TST 733 set aside; matter remitted for readjudication by a different Presiding Officer; costs directions given
Legal Topics
Wrongful Dismissal, Commission Payment, Notice Pay, Reopening of Concluded Proceedings, Remittal/retrial, Evidence Admissibility
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Labour Law Contract Law Procedural Law Wrongful Dismissal Commission Payment Notice Pay Reopening of Concluded Proceedings +2 more

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YIP PAK HUNG

Respondent/claimant

YPT INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal to High Court / Appeal Judgment (remittal Ordered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Presiding Officer erred in awarding commissions and failing to treat the $1,500 monthly guaranteed commission as deductible or not
  2. 2 Whether proceedings TST 733 had reached finality and could be lawfully reopened and supplemented while leave to appeal was pending
  3. 3 Whether the Presiding Officer improperly relied on incomplete/unmarked documentary evidence and failed to consider written statements and cross-examination as required

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because the Presiding Officer improperly supplemented a concluded TST 733 award while leave to appeal was pending and proceeded without adequate regard to written statements and proper evidential procedure; the defective process created a real risk that prior conclusions coloured subsequent determinations and accordingly the award in 733 is set aside and the matter remitted for readjudication by a different Presiding Officer.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; award and purported supplemental award in TST 733 set aside; matter remitted for readjudication by a different Presiding Officer; costs directions given

Orders

  • Appeal be allowed
  • Award and purported award including costs thereof in 733 be set aside