Axa China Region Insurance Co Ltd v. Leong Fong Cheng

HCA 1516/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

HIGH COURT ACTION NO 1516 OF 2013

____________

____________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the trial of the plaintiff’s action against the defendant for recovery of:-

(1)  the sum of HK$997,500.00 advanced to the defendant as “Career Bonus” pursuant to clause (3)(a) of an “EHP Manager’s Financing Agreement Package M3” dated 29 July 2011 (“the 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement”);

(2)  the sum of HK$208,366.64 advanced to the defendant as “Monthly Transition Bonus” pursuant to clause (3)(c) of the 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement; and

(3)  the sum of HK$1,093.60 described by the plaintiff as “Negative Payments”,

upon termination of the defendant’s position as manager and agent of the plaintiff on 4 March 2013.

BACKGROUND FACTS

(i)    The parties

2.The plaintiff, AXA China Region Insurance Company Limited (“AXA”), is an authorised insurer in Hong Kong under the Insurance Companies Ordinance, Cap 41, and carries on the business of (inter alia) selling insurance policies in or from Hong Kong.

3.The defendant is a graduate of the University of Hong Kong and has been working in the insurance industry since her graduation in 1998.  Between 1998 and 2010, the defendant worked as an insurance agent of The Prudential Assurance Company Limited (“Prudential”).

4.According to the defendant:-

(1)  In or about June 2000, Michael Leung (her “boss” at Prudential) informed her that he intended to leave Prudential and form a new team at AXA, and invited her to follow him and join AXA as a recruitment manager in his new team.

(2)  The defendant accepted Michael Leung’s invitation and resigned from Prudential on 15 September 2010.

(3)  Although her arrangement with Michael Leung was that she would become a “recruitment manager” of AXA, he proposed that she should start as an “agent” first and her position would be changed to “recruitment manager” when he joined AXA in April 2011.  The defendant also accepted Michael Leung’s proposed arrangement.

(ii)   The 2010 Agent’s Contract and 2010 Agent’s Financing Agreement

5.On or about 29 September 2010, the defendant signed two written agreements. They were both dated 12 October 2010.

6.The first one was entitled “Agent’s Contract” (“the 2010 Agent’s Contract”). The parties thereto were AXA and the defendant.  Under the 2010 Agent’s Contract, the defendant was appointed as an agent of AXA.  Her responsibilities as AXA’s agent were set out in clause 2.1 of the 2010 Agent’s Contract, as follows:-

(1)  solicit applications for insurance and such other business as AXA might from time to time determine;

(2)  service the needs and requirements of clients introduced by the defendant and assigned by AXA;

(3)  meet the key performance indicators specified by AXA including production and persistency;

(4)  attend all trainings, meetings and seminars as required by AXA; and

(5)  perform such other duties as requested by AXA.

7.Clause 17.1 of the 2010 Agent’s Contract provided that AXA or the defendant could terminate the contract at any time and without giving any reason for so doing by giving 1 month’s notice to the other in writing.

8.Clause 17.2(i) of the 2010 Agent’s Contract further provided that AXA could terminate the contract immediately with notice to the defendant if (inter alia) the defendant did not meet training, production, persistency or other requirements in respect of the defendant’s appointment which might be set by AXA.

9.The second agreement that the defendant entered into was entitled “EHP Agent’s Financing Agreement Package MDRT” (“the 2010 Agent’s Financing Agreement”). The parties thereto were AXA, the defendant and So Lai Sin (as “Manager”).

10.Under clause (2) of the 2010 Agent’s Financing Agreement, AXA agreed to advance to the defendant (inter alia):-

(1)  a “Career Bonus” in accordance with the Schedule thereto (sub‑paragraph (a)); and

(2)  a “Monthly Transition Bonus” in accordance with the Schedule thereto (sub-paragraph (c)).

11.Clause (5)(i) of the 2010 Agent’s Financing Agreement provided that if the 2010 Agent’s Contract was terminated for any reason within 48 months from its effective date (ie 12 October 2010), a portion of the amount of the Career Bonus and Monthly Transition Bonus that had been advanced to the defendant thereunder would be immediately repayable by the defendant to AXA.  Sub-paragraph (a) thereof further provided that the defendant was required to repay 100% of the amount of the Career Bonus and Monthly Transition Bonus advanced if the 2010 Agent’s Contract was terminated within 24 months from its effective date.

12.Pursuant to the 2010 Agent’s Financing Agreement, AXA advanced to the defendant:-

(1)  the sum of HK$997,500.00 as Career Bonus (“the Original CB”) on or about 29 October 2010; and

(2)  the total sum of HK$208,366.64 as Monthly Transition Bonus (“the Original MTB”).

(iii)  The 2011 Agent’s Contract, 2011 Agency Manager’s Contract and 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement

13.According to the defendant, in or about January 2011, she raised the issue of changing her position from “agent” to “recruitment manager” with Stuart Harrison (Chief Executive Officer of AXA).  Eventually, it was agreed that AXA and the defendant would enter into fresh agreements to give effect to her change of position and that the previous agreements, ie the 2010 Agent’s Contract and 2010 Agent’s Financing Agreement, would be terminated.

14.On 28 July 2011, the defendant signed:-

(1)  a new Agent’s Contract (“the 2011 Agent’s Contract”);

(2)  an Agency Manager’s Contract (“the 2011 Agency Manager’s Contract”): and

(3)  the 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement.

15.All three agreements were dated 29 July 2011.  The parties to the 2011 Agent’s Contract and 2011 Agency Manager’s Contract were AXA and the defendant.  The parties to the 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement were AXA, the defendant and Yu Kwok Chun Edmund (as “Agent Leader”).

16.The terms of the 2011 Agent’s Contract were identical to those contained in the 2010 Agent’s Contract in all material respects.

17.The 2011 Agency Manager’s Contract provided, by clause 1.1 thereof, that the defendant was to act as both an agency manager and an agent of AXA.

18.Clause 2.1 of the 2011 Agency Manager’s Contract set out the defendant’s responsibilities as AXA’s agency manager, as follows:-

(1)  meet the key performance indicators specified by AXA including production, recruitment and persistency;

(2)  recruit agents and agency managers who could meet the requirements specified by AXA;

(3)  explain accurately to any person whom the defendant wished to recruit on behalf of AXA the nature of engagement with AXA and the terms and conditions of such engagement;

(4)  train, supervise and develop agents and agency managers who were under her supervision as determined by AXA;

(5)  through agents and agency managers under her supervision, service the needs and requirements of clients introduced by them and assigned by AXA;

(6)  attend all trainings, meetings and seminars as required by AXA; and

(7)  perform such other duties as requested by AXA.

19.Clause 4.1 of the 2011 Agency Manager’s Contract further set out the defendant’s responsibilities as AXA’s agent.  They were the same as those set out in clause 2.1 of the 2010 Agent’s Contract.

20.The 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement provided that it was to come into effect on 29 July 2011.

21.Clause (1) of the 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement provided as follows:-

(1)  The 2010 Agent’s Contract was terminated on 29 July 2011.

(2)  Pursuant to clause (5)(i) of the 2010 Agent’s Financing Agreement, the defendant was required to repay 100% of the Original CB and Original MTB to AXA.  The defendant agreed and undertook to repay them in the following manner:-

(a)  HK$997,500.00 would be repaid to AXA upon execution of the 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement; and

(b)HK$208,366.64 would be repaid to AXA by cheque on or before 30 June 2011.

(3)  The defendant further irrevocably authorized AXA to deduct the repayment amounts from (inter alia) any advances required to be made to the defendant by AXA thereunder.

22.By clause (3) of the 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement, AXA agreed to advance to the defendant (inter alia):-

(1)  a “Career Bonus” in accordance with the Schedule thereto (sub-paragraph (a)); and

(2)  a “Monthly Transition Bonus” in accordance with the Schedule thereto (sub-paragraph (c)).

23.Clause (6)(i) of the 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement provided that if the 2011 Agency Manager’s Contract was terminated for any reason within 48 months from its effective date (ie 29 July 2011), a portion of the amount of the Career Bonus and Monthly Transition Bonus that had been advanced to the defendant thereunder would be immediately repayable by the defendant to AXA. Sub-paragraph (a) thereof further provided that the defendant was required to repay 100% of the amount of the Career Bonus and Monthly Transition Bonus advanced if the 2011 Agency Manager’s Contract was terminated within 24 months from its effective date.

(iv)   Repayment of the Original CB and Original MTB and advance of the New CB and New MTB

24.One of the issues discussed between AXA and the defendant prior to the making of the new agreements in 2011 concerned the defendant’s obligation to repay the Original CB and Original MTB upon termination of the 2010 Agent’s Contract.

25.It is AXA’s case that the parties eventually agreed that:-

(1)  the defendant’s obligation to repay the Original CB was to be set off against the “Career Bonus” of the same amount (“the New CB”) to be advanced to the defendant by AXA under the 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement, so that no actual payment of money would be made by either party; and

(2)  the defendant would repay the Original MTB upon termination of the 2010 Agent’s Contract, and AXA would advance to her an equivalent total sum of HK$208,366.64 (“the New MTB”) as Monthly Transition Bonus under the 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement.

26.On the other hand, the defendant’s case, as set out in paragraph 19 of her defence, is that:-

“(a) Before the [2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement] was signed by the Defendant on 28 July 2011, Mr. Cyrus Chung, Division Head of Agency Management of the Plaintiff orally represented to the Defendant about the waiver/settlement arrangements of the sums of HK$997,500.00 and HK$208,366.64 under Clause 1 of the [2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement] that:

(i) The Defendant’s repayment obligation of the sum of HK$997,500.00 under Clause 1(a) of the [2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement] would be waived by the Plaintiff; and

(ii)The Plaintiff would waive the time requirement for the repayment of the sum of HK$208,366.64 on or before 30 June 2011 under Clause 1(b) of the [2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement] and allow the settlement of the sum of HK$208,366.64 by a cheque drawn by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff dated 28 July 2011.

(b) It was also agreed that the Plaintiff would issue a letter confirming that the repayment of the sums of HK$997,500.00 and HK$208,366.64 under the [2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement] was settled as at 28 July 2011, so that the Defendant would not be required to pay in accordance with Clause 1(a) and (b) of the [2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement].

(c) Relying and acting on the Plaintiff’s representations as pleaded in paragraph 19(a) above, the Defendant gave to the Plaintiff a personal cheque drawn in favour of the Plaintiff dated 28 July 2011 in settlement of the sum of HK$208,366.64 and signed the [2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement] accordingly.

(d) Pursuant to the agreement as pleaded in paragraph 19(b) above, the Plaintiff issued a letter to the Defendant dated 19 August 2011 (the “said Letter”), confirming that the said sums of HK$997,500.00 and HK$208,366.64 due under the [2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement] were cleared as at 28 July 2011.

(e) The Plaintiff’s waiver as pleaded in paragraph 19(a)(i) and (ii) above is also evidenced by the said Letter.

(f) Further and/or in the alternative, there was a collateral agreement made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant containing the following terms at the time of signing of the [2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement].

(i) The Defendant’s repayment obligation of the sum of HK$997,500.00 under Clause 1(a) of the [2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement] would be waived by the Plaintiff; and

(ii)The Plaintiff would waive the time requirement for the repayment of the sum of HK$208,366.64 on or before 30 June 2011 under Clause 1(b) of the [2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement] and allow the settlement of the sum of HK$208,366.64 by a cheque drawn by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff dated 28 July 2011.

(g)   The collateral agreement is contained in or evidenced by the said Letter.”

27.It is not in dispute that, as a matter of fact:-

(1)  there was no actual payment made by either the defendant or AXA in relation to the repayment of the Original CB or the advance of the New CB respectively;

(2)  on 28 July 2011, the defendant issued a cheque in the amount of HK$208,366.64 in favour of AXA in repayment of the Original MTB; and

(3)  on 19 August 2011, AXA issued a letter to the defendant entitled “Repayment of CB and MTB Amount under Original Agreement”, stating as follows-

“According to the [2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement] dated 29 July 2011, this is to confirm that the said amount of HK$1,205,866.64 [HK$997,500 (CB) + HK$208,366.64 (MTB)] has been cleared as at 28 July 2011.”

28.It is AXA’s case that, during the period from August to November 2011, it advanced to the defendant, by 4 instalments, the total sum of HK$208,366.64, being the New MTB, pursuant to clause (3)(c) of the  2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement.  On the other hand, the defendant does not admit those payments and puts AXA to strict proof of them (see paragraph 23 of her defence).

(v)    Termination of the 2011 Agent’s Contract, 2011 Agency Manager’s Contract and 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement

29.Apparently, the defendant failed to meet the performance requirements set by AXA for her, despite a number of warning letters issued by AXA to the defendant reminding or requiring her to improve her performance dated between 11 November 2011 and 29 November 2012.

30.The defendant denies having received those letters, except the last one dated 29 November 2012.  I have some reservation on the defendant’s denial of receipt of the earlier warning letters, having regard to:-

(1)  an email from the defendant to Alger Fung and Cyrus Chung dated 18 March 2012, in which the defendant referred to having received a letter about “warning of poor performance” on 7 March 2012 (although she said in her evidence that it was not a reference to the warning letter dated 2 March 2012 relied on by AXA); and

(2)  another email from the defendant to Molly Kwong dated 15 June 2012, in which the defendant requested that “the warning letter [should be put in her] Pigeon Hole directly in [her] office.”

31.In any event, irrespective of whether the defendant received the earlier warning letters, it is clear that the defendant was aware that AXA was not satisfied with her performance, as evidenced by the contents of the defendant’s said email to Alger Fung and Cyrus Chung dated 18 March 2012.

32.Further, the defendant accepted in her evidence that she had received the last warning letter dated 29 November 2012, in which AXA set out certain specific performance requirements to be met by the defendant, failing which her agent’s contract would be terminated in March 2013.  The defendant also accepted that she did not meet those performance requirements, but blamed it on AXA’s failure to provide support to her work and gender discrimination against her.

33.By a letter dated 4 March 2013, AXA formally terminated the defendant’s 2011 Agent’s Contract.

34.By a further letter dated 6 March 2013, AXA demanded the defendant to pay or repay within 7 days:-

(1)  the New CB in the sum of HK$997,500.00

(2)  the New MTB in the sum of HK$208,366.64; and

(3)  “Negative Payment” (ie Sales Giveaway Stock, Training & Education) in the sum of HK$1,093.60.

35.In what follows, I shall deal with various issues raised by the defendant in her defence, namely:-

(1)  whether AXA advanced, as a matter of fact, the New MTB in the total sum of HK$208,366.64 to the defendant;

(2)  whether there was any oral waiver or collateral agreement to the effect that the defendant was not required to repay the New CB and New MTB under the 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement;

(3)  whether AXA validly terminated the 2011 Agent’s Contract and the 2011 Agency Manager’s Contract; and

(4)  whether the defendant is liable for the “Negative Payments” in the aggregate sum of HK$1,093.60.

AXA ADVANCED THE NEW MTB IN THE TOTAL SUM OF HK$208,366.64 TO THE DEFENDANT

36.Lai Tsui Ling, AXA’s Head of Sales Human Resources Team, gave evidence that AXA did advance the New MTB in the total sum of HK$208,366.64 to the defendant.  She produced a number of “Agent’s Statements” bearing the defendant’s name as evidence of the following payments to the defendant:-

(1)  two sums, each of HK$55,416.66 (totalling HK$110,833.32), appearing in the “Agent’s Statement 2011/08 Month End Payment”;

(2)  the sum of HK$55,416.66 appearing in the “Agent’s Statement 2011/09 Month End Payment”; and

(3)  the sum of HK$42,116.66 appearing in the “Agent’s Statement 2011/10 Month End Payment”.

37.She also produced photocopies of the following cheques in relation to the New MTB, all made payable to the defendant:-

(1)  a cheque for the amount of HK$55,416.66 dated 11 August 2011;

(2)  a cheque for the amount of HK$52,276.66 dated 6 September 2011;

(3)  a cheque for the amount of HK$86,831.66 dated 6 October 2011; and

(4)  a cheque for the amount of HK$47,921.66 dated 4 November 2011.

38.The amounts shown on the above cheques do not exactly match the respective amounts of the New MTB paid to the defendant because they included other payments due to or by the defendant.

39.I accept Lai Tsui Ling’s evidence and find that AXA did advance the New MTB in the total sum of HK$208,366.64 to the defendant pursuant to clause (3)(c) of the 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement.

NO WAIVER OR COLLETERAL AGREEMENT AS ALLEGED BY DEFENADNT

40.The defendant’s allegation of oral waiver or collateral agreement as pleaded in paragraph 19 of her defence was denied by Cyrus Chung (formerly Division Head of AXA’s Agency Management Team).

41.More importantly, the defendant’s allegation of oral waiver or collateral agreement is inconsistent with a number of contemporaneous documents, including:-

(1)  the defendant’s email dated 27 March 2011 to Cyrus Chung, in which she stated that –

“Money of CB for my tentative MDRT AGENT CONTRACT will be apply to my NEW SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER CONTRACT and it will be adjust for my new Manager Package”;

(2)  the defendant’s email dated 28 June 2011, which evidenced the defendant’s proposal and understanding that her obligation to repay the Old CB upon termination of her old “MDRT” contract would be set off against the New CB payable by AXA to her under the new manager contract;

(3)  the defendant’s draft Chinese agreement attached to her email dated 15 July 2011 to Edmond Yu (the defendant’s “Agent Leader” under the 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement) setting out the proposed set off arrangement; and

(4)  clause (1) of the 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement.

42.At the trial, the defendant produced a DVD containing a recording of a telephone conversation between her and Cyrus Chung which, according to the defendant, took place in April 2011.  The contents of the conversation do not, however, support the defendant’s case of waiver or collateral agreement.  On the other hand, they tend to support AXA’s case that the agreement between the parties was that the defendant would not need to repay the Old CB upon termination of the 2010 Agent’s Contract, but the same would be set off against the New CB payable to her under the new contract to be entered into.  The highest that one can get from the telephone conversation is that Cyrus Chung agreed to put the defendant’s request to Stuart Harrison (AXA’s CEO) for consideration.

43.AXA’s letter dated 19 August 2011 which the defendant heavily relies upon also does not support the defendant’s case of waiver or collateral agreement.  In my view, a proper reading of that letter means only that AXA agreed that the Old CB and Old MTB advanced under the 2010 Agent’s Financing Agreement were treated as having been repaid on 28 July 2011.

44.In passing, I should mention that, at the trial, the defendant alleged that when she signed the statement of truth in relation to the facts stated in the defence and counterclaim dated 27 September 2013, it was not attached to any document and she had not approved the contents of the defence and counterclaim before signing the statement of truth.  I do not accept this allegation which had not previously been made prior to her giving evidence in court.

45.In all, I reject the defendant’s case of waiver or collateral agreement as pleaded in paragraph 19 of her defence.

AXA validly terminated the 2011 Agent’s Contract AND 2011 Agency Manager’s Contract

46.The defendant has raised two objections to AXA’s termination letter dated 4 March 2013.

47.First, it is said that AXA should have given her one month’s notice of termination of the 2011 Agent’s Contract.  Clause 17.2(i) of the 2011 Agent’s Contract provided, however, that AXA was entitled to terminate it immediately with notice to the defendant if she did not meet (inter alia) any “other requirements in respect of the Agent’s appointment in this Agreement which may be set by AXA”.  As earlier mentioned, it is not in dispute that the defendant failed to meet the performance requirements set by AXA of which the defendant had notice.  It follows that AXA was entitled to terminate the 2011 Agent’s Contract immediately by its letter of 4 March 2013.

48.Second, it is said that the termination of the 2011 Agent’s Contract would not bring about the automatic termination of the 2011 Agency Manager’s Contract.  In this regard, it is important to note that in the said letter, the defendant was required to return to AXA on or before 4 March 2013:-

(1)  all business name cards, stationery, and printed materials bearing the logo of AXA;

(2)  premium collected on behalf of AXA;

(3)  books of accounts and records showing all the defendant’s transactions on behalf of AXA, including copies of policies and application forms of AXA’s policy holders and copies containing the defendant’s personal data;

(4)  books and records showing all other matters and things concerning the defendant’s business pursuant to the 2011 Agent’s Contract; and

(5)  the defendant’s AXA Health Card, Access Control Cards. Agent ID Card, Agent’s desk drawer and/or door cabinet keys belonging to AXA.

49.The letter informed the defendant that her access rights of all AXA’s computer systems would be terminated after contract termination, and she was required to remove all applications and erase all data provided by AXA, if any, stored in her computer and/or digital diary in respect of AXA’s clients, business and group.  The defendant was told that she was not permitted to represent AXA in any way after 4 March 2013.  It also stated that “any finance or allowance granted to [the defendant] by [AXA], if any, should be repaid in accordance with the terms of the relevant agreement(s) signed between [the defendant] and [AXA]”.  At that time, the only operative agreement under which finance or allowance was granted to the defendant by AXA was the 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement.

50.It must also be borne in mind that the three contracts, ie the 2011 Agent’s Contract, the 2011 Agency Manager’s Contract and the 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement, were entered into by (inter alia) AXA and the defendant as a package in relation to the latter’s engagement as AXA’s agent and manager.  The 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement itself stated that it was attached to and formed part of the 2011 Agency Manager’s Contract.  I consider that any reasonable person would understand AXA’s letter of 4 March 2013 as constituting a notice of termination the 2011 Agency Manager’s Contract as well. 

51.In all, I am of the view that AXA’s letter dated 4 March 2013 was effective to terminate the 2011 Agent’s Contract and the 2011 Agency Manager’s Contract with immediate effect.

52.Since the 2011 Agency Manager’s Contract was terminated within 24 months from its effective date (namely, 29 July 2011), the defendant was obliged to repay 100% of the New CB and New MTB to AXA, pursuant to clause 6(i)(a) of the 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement.

NEGATIVE PAYMENTS

53.In paragraph 26 of the statement of claim, AXA particularised the “Negative Payments” (in the total sum of HK$1,093.60) as comprising two items, namely:-

(1)  “Training and Education” in respect of a course taken by the defendant on or about 15 January 2013, the course fee of which amounted to HK$650; and

(2)  “Sales Giveaway Stock” which the defendant ordered during her engagement by AXA, with a value of HK$443.60.

54.It is clear, however, from the “Agent’s Statements” produced by AXA that the sum of HK$1,093.60 in fact represented the net final balance allegedly owing by the defendant to AXA made up of numerous credits and debits over many months. At the trial, AXA did not attempt to prove the underlying transactions which gave rise to the net final balance of HK$1,093.60.  Neither did it apply to amend the statement of claim to advance a claim for the sum of HK$1,093.60 on any other basis.

55.On the existing pleadings and evidence, I reject AXA’s claim for “Negative Payments” against the defendant.

DISPOSITION

56.For the foregoing reasons, I give judgment to AXA against the defendant for the amounts of HK$997,500.00 and HK$208,366.64, with interest thereon at the rate of 3% per annum above the best lending rate of HSBC from 4 March 2013 to the date of this judgment pursuant to clause (8) of the 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement.

57.I dismiss the defendant’s counterclaim against AXA.

58.I also order the defendant to pay AXA’s costs of this action, including AXA’s costs of defending the counterclaim, to be taxed on solicitor and own client basis if not agreed pursuant to clause (9) of the 2011 Manager’s Financing Agreement.

59.Lastly, as mentioned at the conclusion of the trial, this judgment is written in English although the trial was conducted in Cantonese, the reason being that all underlying documents and pleadings are written in English.  However, should the defendant require, the court can arrange an interpreter to orally interpret the contents of this judgment to her.

Mr Derek J Y Chan, instructed by Kennedys, for the plaintiff

The defendant, acting in person