Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Mobility clause

  • 28 Jun 2005

    WONG YIN FONG AND OTHERS v. ISS HONG KONG SERVICES LTD

    Citation
    WONG YIN FONG AND OTHERS v. ISS HONG KONG SERVICES LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCLA56/2003

    Mobility clauses permitted re-deployment upon termination of the MTRC contract; objectively the re-deployments were not repudiatory and did not constitute constructive dismissal; employer has an implied duty to act rationally but that duty did not require immediate dismissal to trigger severance; withholding of documents by tribunal was erroneous but produced no substantial miscarriage of justice; attendance bonus qualified as wages for the purpose of annual leave pay and contractual terms deducting attendance bonus from annual leave pay were void under Section 70 of the Employment Ordinance,…

  • 22 Aug 2003

    WONG YUK LING v. EAST EAST FOOD PRODUCTS LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    WONG YUK LING v. EAST EAST FOOD PRODUCTS LTD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCLA95/2002

    The Labour Tribunal's factual findings that transfers were not for any genuine operational need and were used to force the Claimants to quit meant clause 4 did not authorize the transfers; that unjustified transfers constituted a serious repudiatory breach amounting to constructive dismissal; the concession on end of year pay by the Defendants and the Employee Handbook provisions established entitlement; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal awards and costs were upheld.

  • 21 Nov 1991

    YAN KWOK TUNG AND OTHERS v. NAPOLEON RESTAURANT LTD. AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    YAN KWOK TUNG AND OTHERS v. NAPOLEON RESTAURANT LTD. AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCLA15/1990

    The court held that for Section 31B(2)(c) "the place where the employee was so employed" refers to the actual geographical place where the employee worked (geographical test), not merely places he could be required to work under contract; Section 31B(2)(a) is likewise not dependent on physical location; the Presiding Officer did not err in finding actual dismissal and redundancy on the primary facts but remittals were required where factual or legal inquiries remained (qualifying service for C25, provident fund/retirement payments and commuting-distance inquiries for specified claimants).