Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sickness allowance

Legal area

Court

3 May 2023

蔣紅霞對卓愛康復中心有限公司

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1130
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA1/2023

The Labour Tribunal's factual findings that the claimant was not on a paid sickness day on 17 March (she worked that morning, submitted a negative test and obtained a medical certificate only after dismissal), combined with acceptance of the employer's evidence of misconduct under s32K, meant the dismissal was not unlawful; the High Court found no error of law in those findings and refused leave to appeal.
8 Apr 2019

TSANG MEI SHEUNG MEIZ v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 358
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1632/2017

On the agreed facts the commission and team leader bonus were paid monthly, were payable for each day of the month regardless of attendance, and therefore constitute sums paid for statutory entitlements within the 'any other reason' limb of sections 35(4), 41(6) and 41C(6) of the Employment Ordinance; such sums must be deducted when calculating statutory entitlements, resulting in no shortfall and dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.
23 Jun 2016

TSANG MEI SHEUNG MEIZ v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD

Citation

TSANG MEI SHEUNG MEIZ v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA29/2015

The court allowed the appeal in part: the Presiding Officer erred in law by failing to consider legislative intent and implied terms/other agreements when deciding whether commissions (and team leader bonus) constituted a 'sum of money in respect of' a paid sickness/holiday/annual leave day so as to permit deduction under ss 35(4), 41(6) and 41C(6); the awards were set aside and the issue remitted to the Labour Tribunal for determination limited to whether commissions and the team leader bonus can be applied as deductions. The court dismissed the employer's challenge to the Presiding Officer'…
23 Jun 2016

MO KWOK KEI v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD

Citation

MO KWOK KEI v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA30/2015

The Presiding Officer erred in law by failing to consider implied terms, other agreements or the legislative intent behind the 2007 amendments when excluding commissions from deduction under ss35(4), 41(6) and 41C(6); accordingly the appeals are allowed in part and the awards are set aside and remitted to the Labour Tribunal to determine whether commissions and team leader bonus constitute sums paid in respect of paid sick/holiday/annual leave days and thus may be deducted. The Presiding Officer's finding that the employer's Replacement Arrangement was a unilateral imposition was supported by…
23 Jun 2016

MAK WAI MAN v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD

Citation

MAK WAI MAN v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA28/2015

Allowed appeal on issue of whether commissions/team leader bonus could be deducted under ss 35(4), 41(6) and 41C(6): Presiding Officer erred by failing to consider legislative intent and whether commissions might be treated as payments in respect of paid leave (including implied terms/other agreements); matter remitted to Labour Tribunal to determine whether commissions and team leader bonus reduce statutory entitlements. Dismissed appeal on Replacement Arrangement: Presiding Officer’s finding that arrangement was unilateral and not accepted or estopped was supported by evidence and will stan…
30 Oct 2015

FUNG PUI WAH SALLY v. RICHFIELD REALTY LITD

Citation

FUNG PUI WAH SALLY v. RICHFIELD REALTY LITD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA31/2015

Leave to appeal was granted because it was arguable the Presiding Officer erred in law in his treatment of commissions under the Relevant Statutory Provisions and failed to investigate adequately whether the Claimants had accepted or acquiesced to the Replacement Arrangement, such failures meeting the threshold for leave from the Labour Tribunal.
30 Oct 2015

MO KWOK KEI v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD

Citation

MO KWOK KEI v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA30/2015

Leave to appeal granted because the appellant demonstrated arguable errors of law on the commission set-off point (interpretation/application of ss35(4),41(6),41C(6)) and an arguable failure by the Presiding Officer to investigate the factual/legal effect of claimants' alleged acceptance of the Replacement Arrangement, such failures could give rise to injustice making an appeal appropriate.
30 Oct 2015

MAK WAI MAN v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD

Citation

MAK WAI MAN v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA28/2015

The court found there were arguable errors of law and arguable failures of investigation by the Labour Tribunal: it is arguable the Tribunal did not properly consider the Relevant Statutory Provisions and legislative intent in concluding commissions could not reduce statutory entitlements, and it is arguable the Tribunal failed to investigate whether claimants had accepted the Replacement Arrangement, such failure could give rise to injustice; accordingly leave to appeal should be granted.
30 Oct 2015

TSANG MEI SHEUNG MEIZ v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD

Citation

TSANG MEI SHEUNG MEIZ v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA29/2015

Leave to appeal was granted because it was arguable that the Presiding Officer erred in law or failed to give proper regard to the Relevant Statutory Provisions regarding deduction of commissions from statutory entitlements, and it was arguable that the Presiding Officer failed to investigate claimant conduct concerning the Replacement Arrangement such that a fair determination could not be achieved; consequently leave to appeal should be permitted to ventilate these legal issues at full hearing.
22 Jun 2010

FONG ANNE v. HONG KONG ADVENTIST HOSPITAL

Citation

FONG ANNE v. HONG KONG ADVENTIST HOSPITAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA33/2009

Court held that the Presiding Officer erred in law by treating unpaid voluntary stand-by as contractual hours and by applying paragraph 3(2)(b) without evidence of a global contract/mutuality; the Hospital discharged its burden to show six weeks of unexplained absence (three within the crucial 24 months) thereby breaking continuity and disqualifying the claimant from statutory severance although the finding of dismissal by redundancy was supported by evidence; claims on hours requiring detailed factual findings (annual leave, holiday pay, sickness allowance) were remitted to the Labour Tribun…