Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Long service pay

Legal area

Court

10 Jan 2007

LIU KAM CHEONG v.TIN WO ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

LIU KAM CHEONG v.TIN WO ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA31/2006

The appeal was allowed and the award set aside because the presiding officer failed to investigate and apply sections 2 and 3 of the First Schedule to the Employment Ordinance to determine whether the claimant had a continuous contract; the matter is remitted to the Labour Tribunal to determine continuity and the quantum of annual leave and statutory holiday pay.
19 Jan 2001

YU KAM SANG v. YUEN CHAK CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Citation

YU KAM SANG v. YUEN CHAK CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA90/2000

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the Presiding Officer's primary fact findings that the Claimant was dismissed were supported by evidence and inferences properly drawn from the manner, tone and circumstances of the exchanges; the Defendant failed to show reasonable prospects of success or that the findings were inconsistent or based on ignored evidence.
10 Jan 2001

LEE WING KIT AND OTHERS v. EAST NOBLE CONTAINER SERVICE LTD. ANOTHER

Citation

LEE WING KIT AND OTHERS v. EAST NOBLE CONTAINER SERVICE LTD. ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA62/2000

The appeal is allowed in part because the Labour Tribunal failed to discharge its duty under s.20(3) to investigate whether the alleged misconduct was sufficiently serious to justify summary dismissal; accordingly awards for wages in lieu of notice, long service pay and severance pay were set aside and remitted for further inquiry though the finding that the Claimants were employees and that East Noble bore liability was supported by evidence of control and company arrangements.
19 Jul 2000

LUI TIN LUNG v. SUN PO YUEN NOODLE SHOP & CAFé

Citation

LUI TIN LUNG v. SUN PO YUEN NOODLE SHOP & CAFé
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9302/1999

The court accepted the Plaintiff's evidence and rejected the Defendant's; the Plaintiff's conduct did not amount to wilful disobedience or lawful reason for summary dismissal, so the Defendant was liable for wages in lieu of notice and terminal long service payment; the Plaintiff's contractual entitlement was four paid rest days per month and deductions for third and fourth rest days and related wage calculations were unlawful; judgment entered for the Plaintiff for the calculated sums with interest and costs.
14 Feb 1997

LAM TZE YING AND OTHERS v. MARIA COLLEGE

Citation

LAM TZE YING AND OTHERS v. MARIA COLLEGE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA136/1996

The alleged conduct of the respondents did not constitute wilful disobedience or misconduct of sufficient gravity to justify summary dismissal under Section 9 of the Employment Ordinance; accordingly the Labour Tribunal award of long service pay was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
15 Oct 1996

SIU WAN PING v. MASTER LINK DEVELOPMENT LTD. t/a VIKING RESTAURANT (TAI PO)

Citation

SIU WAN PING v. MASTER LINK DEVELOPMENT LTD. t/a VIKING RESTAURANT (TAI PO)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA60/1996

The Tribunal's finding that the employer paid 7 days wages in lieu of notice under Section 7 meant the payment qualified as wages for the purposes of the Employment Ordinance and thus the claimant was entitled to long service pay under Section 31R; the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Tribunal's orders.

Hong Kong Case Law

LIU KAM CHEONG v.TIN WO ENGINEERING CO LTD

YU KAM SANG v. YUEN CHAK CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

LEE WING KIT AND OTHERS v. EAST NOBLE CONTAINER SERVICE LTD. ANOTHER

LUI TIN LUNG v. SUN PO YUEN NOODLE SHOP & CAFé

LAM TZE YING AND OTHERS v. MARIA COLLEGE

SIU WAN PING v. MASTER LINK DEVELOPMENT LTD. t/a VIKING RESTAURANT (TAI PO)