TITIK SURYATI PRAWITO v. WONG YUK YING JOSEPHINE

HCLA000005/2002

HCLA 5/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

LABOUR TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM LABOUR TRIBUNAL CLAIM NO. LBTC 5664/2001)

____________

BETWEEN
TITIK SURYATI PRAWITO Claimant
(Appellant)
AND
WONG YUK YING JOSEPHINE Defendant
(Respondent)

____________

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Lam in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 12 June 2002

Date of Handing Down Reasons for Decision: 20 June 2002

_______________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

_______________________

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against the award of the Presiding Officer in LBTC 5664 of 2001. By the award of 20 December2001, the Presiding Officer dismissed the claim of the Claimant regarding wages in lieu of notice, statutory holiday, severance pay,long service payment, underpayment, air ticket and balance of rest day pay. The award was confirmed after a review on 22 January2002.

2. The Claimant now seeks leave to appeal. As set out in her Form 14, her intended grounds of appeal are as follows,

“1. the Presiding Officer in charge of my case failed to properly consider or explore in anyway as it is bound to do;

2. how it could be suggested that I could be said understand the document in Chinese which I signed. This is a fundamental error inlaw as I do not read or write Chinese.”

3. At the hearing before me on 12 June 2002, she supplemented her grounds by oral submissions. Additional points were raised by herregarding the evidence of her bank statements, the receipts signed by her as to salary payments, her employment contract, the resignationletter signed by her and the evidence of a witness called by the Defendant.

4. Having read the transcript of the trial in the light of those submissions, I am satisfied that the Presiding Officer adequately investigatedinto those matters. Regarding the use of Chinese in the resignation letter, the Presiding Officer has duly looked into the matter.After such investigation, he was entitled to conclude that the claimant knew that she was signing a resignation letter.

5. In his Reasons for Decision dated 28 February 2002, the Presiding Officer gave sufficient reasons as to why he did not believe theClaimant. That being so, the Presiding Officer was entitled to accept the case of the Defendant, viz. she resigned on her own accordand there was no underpayment.

6. These are basically finding of facts which the Court of First Instance cannot intervene, see Section 35(2) of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance. There is no error of law in the decision of the Presiding Officer and leave to appeal cannot be granted pursuant to Section 32 of that ordinance.

7. The application is therefore dismissed.

(M H Lam)
Deputy High Court Judge

Representation:

Claimant, Titik Suryati Prawito, in person