31 Aug 2020
The court refused leave because the applicant advanced no arguable point of law nor showed the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction; the applicant's complaints amounted to factual disagreement with the Tribunal's findings, which does not satisfy section 32, therefore leave was refused.
18 Dec 2017
The court accepted the plaintiff’s unchallenged evidence and awarded judgment for the plaintiff in the total sum of HK$749,368.38 comprising arrears of wages, wages in lieu of notice, severance payment, annual leave pay and end of year pay; interest on arrears was awarded under Employment Ordinance s.25 and interest on other items at 2% p.a. from transfer date to judgment and thereafter at judgment rate; costs awarded to plaintiff nisi to be taxed.
22 Nov 2005
No effective oral termination on 6 September was proved; employer's repossession of the coach and keys and prior unilateral attempt to alter engagement amounted to a fundamental breach—defendant was constructively dismissed on 16 September 2002; plaintiff failed to prove breach or conversion or the asserted losses; defendant proved counterclaim for wages in lieu, annual leave and proportionate end of year payment under Employment Ordinance and is awarded $23,677.70 plus interest.
22 Nov 2005
The court found the plaintiff did not give effective notice of termination on 6 September; the employer's conduct in withdrawing the coach and keys and complaining to police amounted to a repudiatory breach and the defendant was constructively dismissed on 16 September 2002; plaintiff failed to prove breach of contract or conversion and failed to prove claimed losses; judgment entered for defendant on counterclaim in the sum of $23,677.70 with interest; costs ordered nisi.
14 May 2004
Where multiple discrete claims are litigated and the time attributable to successful and unsuccessful claims can be differentiated, the court will exercise its discretion to depart from a single follow-the-event costs order and apportion costs to reflect the time spent; given the novelty of Part VIA claims the court declined to make the Plaintiff bear the Defendant's costs relating to those failed claims and varied the order nisi to apportion costs for appeal and for the action accordingly.
11 Mar 2002
The LEIP payment was a contractual, formulaic end-of-year payment within section 11A because the employer\u2019s discretion was fettered by identifiable objective criteria (operating targets, appraisal ratings, and limited grounds for withdrawal) and therefore not "payable only at the discretion of the employer"; improper exercises of that discretion are reviewable, so statutory pro rata entitlement under s11F and non-excludability under s70 apply, entitling the claimant to the awarded sum.
16 Dec 1998
On the facts found by the Labour Tribunal (accepted by the Court), the appellant wilfully disobeyed a lawful and reasonable instruction from the acting General Manager; that conduct justified summary dismissal under s9 Employment Ordinance; the Chinese New Year Bonus was a contractual end-of-year payment and not part of monthly wages, and therefore not payable where dismissal was justified under s9; accordingly the appellant's claims were rightly dismissed.
31 Dec 1996
Clause 6(C) constituted an "end of year payment" within Part IIA of the Employment Ordinance because the contract specified a 12‑month payment period; therefore the contractual proviso requiring the employee to be in employment and not under notice at the date of payment offended s.70 and could not defeat the employee's entitlement; appeal dismissed.
22 Jul 1996
Para.7 did not constitute an agreement to the contrary that displaced Part IIA; the bonus was an end of year payment for the payment period 1 Jan–31 Dec 1995; the employee was employed for that whole period so under s.11E(2) the bonus became due on termination (7 Jan 1996); the employer's construction was not arguable and the application for leave to appeal was refused.
24 Oct 1995
The High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Labour Tribunal because the Presiding Officer's conclusion that the employer summarily dismissed the employee under s.9 was contrary to the evidence and the critical factual issue—whether the employee was dismissed or left voluntarily—required further investigation.