LABOUR LAW: Collective agreement - Breach of - Termination of employment - Whether with just cause and excuse - Hotel business transferred from second appellant to first appellant - Whether change of ownership within meaning of art. 2.4 of collective agreement - Whether first appellant contracted to assume rights and liabilities of second appellant - Whether employees should continue to remain in service to enjoy same entitlements contracted for - Whether first appellant successor, assignee or transferee of second appellant in context of s. 17(1)(a) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Whether parties bound by collective agreement

LABOUR LAW: Employment - Termination of employment - Whether with just cause and excuse - Collective agreement - Breach of - Hotel business transferred from second appellant to first appellant - Whether change of ownership within meaning of art. 2.4 of collective agreement - Whether first appellant contracted to assume rights and liabilities of second appellant - Whether employees should continue to remain in service to enjoy same entitlements contracted for - Whether first appellant successor, assignee or transferee of second appellant in context of s. 17(1)(a) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Whether parties bound by collective agreement

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Notice of appeal - Striking out - Application for - Whether notice of appeal bad in law - Seven sealed orders issued by High Court - Whether appellants should have filed seven notices of appeal instead of one - Decision of High Court embodied in single written grounds - Whether imperative for appellants to set out details of each and every one decision appealed against - Whether notice bad for ambiguity and uncertainty - Whether defect in notice curable - Rules of Court 2012, O. 1A, O. 18 r. 19(1) - Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, r. 5