American International Assurance Co Ltd v. Don Eun Chung and Another

HCMP577/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 577 OF 2007

____________________

BETWEEN

______________________

Before:  Mr Registrar C Chan in Chambers

Date of Hearing:  7 May 2007

Date of Judgment:  7 May 2007

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

1.To me, it is a very simple case for possession under order 113.  The 1st Defendant had an employment agreement with the Plaintiff’s associate company.  She claims that would be unfair to terminate it and  that it is a wrongful termination of the employment agreement.

2.Proceedings have started in the Labour Tribunal and it means that the 1st Defendant accepted termination and she agreed that the contract had been terminated.  According to the agreement, if she accepts the repudiation or termination then she has to move out within three months.  Arrangements have been made, certain agreements have been reached, as I understand, and of course, the period under the arrangement or agreements has long expired. 

3.There have been disputes whether the Plaintiff in this case is the employer.  From the documents that have been produced, I believe that Miss Chung, the 1st Defendant, should realise the subtle difference between the name of the Plaintiff in the present action and the name of the employer.  Of course, this is a matter I should not go deeply into detail.  I accept that the Plaintiff is not the employer of the 1st Defendant.  For that reason, the Plaintiff is entitled to possession of the premises as the licence had been terminated.  As to whether the contract of employment, rightly or wrongly, has been terminated, it is not a matter for me to go into for the purpose of today’s hearing.  There are other venues and other tribunals to deal with the matter.  Today I have to deal with whether possession should be granted and I make an order for possession accordingly. 

4.In view of the condition of the husband of the 1st Defendant, that is the 2nd Defendant, I grant a stay of two months from today.  Costs of this application and the whole proceedings be to the Plaintiff.

(Submissions re costs)

5.Costs to the Plaintiff to be borne by the Defendants.  If not agreed, to be taxed.

Mr A Hill, of Messrs Minter Ellison, for the plaintiff

1st Defendant, in person

2nd Defendant, absent