31 Jan 2019
The adjudicator correctly applied s7(1A)(a) of the Employment Ordinance: because the seven-day notice period included a weekly unpaid rest day, the employer was only required to pay for six days; the employer had paid HK$8,400 (exceeding the calculated entitlement), and the applicant failed to show any legal error by the adjudicator, so leave to appeal was refused.
30 Oct 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.
18 Nov 2011
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the questions raised did not meet the requisite threshold given the availability of prior tribunal and appellate hearings, the issues could be resolved without the Court of Final Appeal's intervention, and factual/contractual questions (including calculation and overtime) should be determined by the Labour Tribunal or on further appellate process rather than by granting leave to the highest court.
1 Feb 1984
Where an employee paid on a piece‑rate basis wrongfully terminates employment without notice the sum payable under s.8A must be calculated in accordance with s.7(3) as the amount of wages actually earned by the employee during the month immediately preceding wrongful termination; applying that rule reduces the award from $1,820 to $1,689.