Cui Hong v. Wah Ngai Printing Ltd

DCCJ 966/ 2005 & DCCJ 1320/ 2005 Consolidated

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 966 OF 2005 &

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1320 OF 2005 Consolidated

____________________

______________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

______________________________________

Coram: Deputy District Judge E. Yip in Court

Date of Hearing: 15-17 March 2006

Date of Judgment: 31 March 2006

C O R R I G E N D U M

Paragraph 32: “ I accept Ms. Ng’s evidence that on 18 August 2004 the plaintiff’s employment was terminated with 1 month’s notice.  Her last day would be 17 September 2004.  She was not entitled to any year-end double pay.  I find that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation only as follows:

(1)$6,233.33 [namely $11,000 x 17/30] as salary in lieu of sufficient notice for 1 – 17 September 2004;

(2)$2,566.67[namely $11,000 x 7/30] as 7 days’ annual leave pay (because the defendant agrees in Court that it should be “7” days instead of only “5” days as pleaded by the plaintiff);

The total was $8,800.00.” should be read as “ I accept Ms. Ng’s evidence that on 18 August 2004 the plaintiff’s employment was terminated with 1 month’s notice.  Her last day would be 17 September 2004.  She was not entitled to any year-end double pay.  I find that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation only as follows:

(1)$5,573.34 [namely $5,866.67 ($11,000 x 16/30) – 293.33 (being 5% MPF payment)] as salary in lieu of sufficient notice for 2 – 17 September 2004;

(2)$2,438.34[namely $2,566.67 ($11,000 x 7/30) – 128.33 (being 5% MPF payment)] as 7 days’ annual leave pay (because the defendant agrees in Court that it should be “7” days instead of only “5” days as pleaded by the plaintiff);

The total was $8,011.68.”

Paragraph 33:    “ I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff the total sum of $8,800.00 with interest at judgment rate from the date the Writ of Summons was filed.  On 14 March 2006, namely a day before trial, the defendant had already paid $8,632.98 into court.  There is no apparent reason why costs should not follow the event.  The plaintiff succeeds in part and fails in part of her Claim.  I shall apportion the costs.  The plaintiff shall have half of the costs of this consolidated case, with a certificate for counsel.  I make this cost order nisi.  It shall become absolute after 14 days from today. “           should be read as“I order Wah Ngai to pay Cui Hong the total sum of $8,011.68 with interest at judgment rate from the date the Writ of Summons in respect of DCCJ 966 of 2005 was filed (i.e. 5 March 2005).  On 14 March 2006, namely a day before trial, Wah Ngai had already paid $8,632.98 into court.  There is no apparent reason why costs should not follow the event.  Wah Ngai succeeds in part and fails in part of its Claim.  I shall apportion the costs.  Wah Ngai shall have half of the costs of this consolidated case, with a certificate for counsel.  I make this cost order nisi.  It shall become absolute after 14 days from today.”

Dated the 24^th day of May 2006