LBTC 595/2012

IN THE LABOUR TRIBUNAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
LABOUR TRIBUNAL CLAIM NO. 595 OF 2012
	---------------------
	----------------------

Before : Ms. Michelle Lam, Presiding Officer
Dates of Hearing: 21-23 and 26-27 March, 25-28 May and 14 June 2012 
Date of Decision: 13 July 2012
Date of Review Hearing: 6 August 2012
Date of Reasons for Decision on Review: 20 September 2012

REASONS FOR DECISION ON REVIEW

1.	After trial, I made the following rulings in respect of the present case on 13 July 2012:

The five Claimants’ claims under item (A) for severance payments is allowed, and the Defendant shall pay forthwith: HK$13,412.05 to the 3rd Claimant, HK$3,003.42 to the 4th Claimant, HK$21,848 to the 7th Claimant, HK$13,827.86 to the 9th Claimant, and HK$13,826.82 to the 11th Claimant; 
The five Claimants’ claims under the second item for terminal payments are dismissed;
The Defendant shall pay forthwith costs of: HK$197 to the 3rd Claimant, HK$1,020 to the 4th Claimant, 	HK$180 to the 7th Claimant, HK$290 to the 9th Claimant, and HK$199 to the 11th Claimant;
Interest on the above judgment sums shall be calculated in accordance with section 39(3) of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance (Cap 25) and be paid by the Defendant.

2.	The Defendant applied for review of the above rulings, and the hearing of the application took place on 6 August 2012. 

3.	Having carefully considered all the grounds of application by the Defendant, I found that those grounds had been raised at trial and each of them had been considered and eventually rejected by me.  Therefore, the Defendant failed to put forward any additional grounds in support of the application for review. 

4.	For the above reason, I have rejected the Defendant’s application for review.  

5.	The Defendant had also applied for a stay of payment-out to the five Claimants of the sum of HK$67,996.81, being the judgment sum paid in by the Defendant on 26 July 2012.  In this respect, having taken into account that the Defendant had all along merely repeated the grounds of defence already raised and fully canvassed but eventually rejected at trial, that the Defendant’s appeal had little prospect of success, and the temporal impact of the appeal proceedings on the five Claimants who were senescent, and also having assessed the impact of a stay of payment-out of the judgment sum on the Defendant and the five Claimants and all relevant factors, I took the view that the Defendant’s application was unjustified.  I have therefore dismissed the application.  

6.	 As for costs, in the absence of any application by the parties, I make no order as to costs.




Translated by the Judgment Translation Unit of the Judiciary and vetted by Mr. Edmund Cham, Solicitor