4 Jul 2016
The Labour Tribunal's factual findings that the employee's sleeping incidents were isolated and not habitual or gross neglect, together with absence of prior warnings, meant there was no lawful reason to summarily dismiss under section 9 of the Employment Ordinance; therefore the dismissal was ineffective and the employer must pay wages in lieu of notice.
16 Apr 2004
The Deputy High Court Judge held that the trial judge erred in treating the touching as ordinary social contact because the victim had unequivocally objected; repeated touching of a disabled colleague despite lack of consent amounted to assault/abuse and justified summary dismissal under Employment Ordinance s9(1)(b); accordingly the appeal was allowed and the Labour Tribunal orders set aside.
15 Oct 1987
The Presiding Officer failed to apply the correct legal approach; given the facts he accepted, the incidents cumulatively amounted to deliberate flouting of essential contractual duties and thus repudiatory conduct justifying summary dismissal under section 9 of the Employment Ordinance; waiver was not established by the period of delay; the awards for wages in lieu of notice and long service payment were set aside.