30 Sept 2008
The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because the reformulated questions identified are questions of great general or public importance that ought to be decided by the Court of Final Appeal; accordingly leave was granted and no security was required pending that appeal.
21 Jan 2008
The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs' general overtime claim failed: HRPM read as a whole and in context (including HRAM and the Honorarium Scheme) does not give doctors at the relevant grades an open-ended contractual right to time-off in lieu or cash for all on-call periods; the Honorarium Scheme operates as the fixed compensation regime for doctors in eligible units and Chapter E4 must be read compatibly so time-off is the primary remedy where operationally practicable within a reasonable period but does not ripen into an unfettered future right where it cannot be granted; being on…
29 Aug 2006
Leave to appeal refused because the claimant sought to challenge findings of fact by the Labour Tribunal which are not appealable under s32(1) unless no evidential basis exists, no arguable point of law was demonstrated, and the claim was prima facie barred by res judicata.
2 Nov 2005
The Court held that the employer complied with the Employment Ordinance: providing a roster in advance that showed days the employee was not required to work constituted sufficient notice of alternative holidays under s39(2); the Presiding Officer's requirement that the employer must label which exact rostered day corresponded to a statutory holiday was too narrow and unnecessary. Whether clause 7(C) formed part of the contract did not affect the outcome because the statutory notice/roster sufficed.
18 Apr 2000
Clause 6 was void under s.70 because it reduced the employee's statutory right to choose whether to work on rest days; s.20 applies only to requests during employment and not to pre-contract impositions; therefore the employee was entitled to pay for 46 rest days at a daily rate of $500 (derived from monthly salary $15,000), totaling $23,000; appeal dismissed.
14 Jan 2000
Leave to appeal was granted solely on a single question of law, framed as whether the Tribunal correctly construed the employment contract and whether the Tribunal's award complied with the law on statutory holiday pay and rest days; grounds attacking factual findings or assessment of evidence did not warrant leave.
16 Sept 1997
The Employment Ordinance does not prohibit employers from paying employees for services rendered on rest days; s.40A prevents wages in lieu of statutory holidays but does not preclude remuneration for actual work on rest days, and therefore the Presiding Officer erred in disallowing the appellant's claim solely on the basis that there is "no pay for rest days."
13 Nov 1996
Clauses in the employment contract that attempted to treat statutory holidays as part of monthly paid rest days and to include wages in lieu within monthly pay were void under Employment Ordinance s.70 because they purport to reduce rights guaranteed by the Ordinance; statutory holidays cannot be substituted by rest days and wages in lieu are prohibited except as permitted on termination, therefore respondent was liable to pay outstanding statutory holiday pay and appeal was allowed with substitution of the award of $11,550.
20 Dec 1995
The High Court held that the Tribunal's credibility finding that the resignation was voluntary was unimpeached and that, even if some work on rest days occurred, the facts did not amount to constructive dismissal as a matter of law; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and remittal was unnecessary.