Lam Sau Fong and Another v. Glory Watch Band (HK) Ltd.
Read the full judgment text of HCLA 91/1999 on BabelCite. This HCLA judgment was delivered on 14 December 1999.
2. The Applicants' grounds of appeal pose no question of law. They simply say the Applicants did not know what or how the Tribunal decided and could not hear the learned Presiding Officer. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.
|
HCLA000091/1999 HCLA 91/99 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE LABOUR TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO. 91 OF 1999 (On Appeal from Labour Tribunal Claim No. LBTC 3818 of 1999)
Coram : Deputy Judge Li in Chambers Date of Hearing : 14 December 1999 Date of Handing Down Reasons for Decision : 14 December 1999 ___________________________ REASONS FOR DECISION ___________________________ Both Applicants were dismissed by their employers on 12th February 1999. From the Reasons for Decisions given by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Tribunal both Applicants were warned in writing twice for persistent misconduct. The Applicants' claims for severance payment or long service payment were therefore rejected by the Labour Tribunal. 2.The Applicants' grounds of appeal pose no question of law. They simply say the Applicants did not know what or how the Tribunal decided and could not hear the learned Presiding Officer. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.
Representation: Applicants in person. |