Campbell Richard Blakeney-williams and Others v. Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd and Another
Read the full judgment text of CACV 268/2009 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 22 July 2011 before Stock VP, Kwan JA and Lam J.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – whether questions of great general or public importance – consolidated actions by pilots against Cathay Pacific Airways and associated companies – wrongful termination of employment – whether termination bypassed Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures – whether court should look beyond wording of termination letters – contractual construction – whether HK$700,000 award for defamation adequate – cross-checking defamation damages against personal injury awards – relevance of trade union communications campaign – aggravated damages – Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 s.22(1)(b) – Court of Appeal set aside lower court's finding that disciplinary procedures engaged and reduced defamation damages – plaintiffs sought leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – questions on wrongful termination held not reasonably arguable and contract-specific, not of general importance – questions on defamation damages largely case-specific – cross-checking question answered beyond argument and not determinative of quantum – leave refused – costs of plaintiffs' applications to defendants, taxed if not agreed – no order on abandoned defendants' cross-appeal application.
Legal issues: Whether questions of general importance arise on wrongful termination by reference to disciplinary procedures · Whether questions of general importance arise on assessment of defamation damages
Outcome: Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; the Court of Appeal's judgment of 24 December 2010 stands
Cited by 8 cases · Cites 2 cases
|
CACV 268/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2009 (ON APPEAL FROM CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS HCMP4400/2001, HCA2822/2002, HCA299/2006, HCA1405/2006 AND HCA807/2007) ____________ HCMP 4400/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 4400 OF 2001 ____________ BETWEEN
HCA 2822/2002
HCA 299/2006
HCA 1405/2006
HCA 807/2007
CACV66/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2009 (ON APPEAL FROM CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS HCMP 4400/2001,
____________ HCMP 4400/2001
HCA 2822/2002
HCA 299/2006
HCA 1405/2006
HCA 807/2007
Before: Hon Stock VP, Kwan JA and Lam J in Court Date of Hearing: 22 July 2011 Date of Judgment: 22 July 2011 Date of Reasons for Judgment: 28 July 2011 ________________________ REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ________________________ Hon Stock VP (giving the Reasons of the Court): 1.On 24 December 2010 we handed down judgment in these actions. 2.These are applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal pursuant to the provisions of section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484. The contention is that there are involved in the appeals questions of great general and / or public importance. It was said that were we not to grant leave on that basis, we should grant leave on the “or otherwise” aspect of that statutory provision. 3.On 22 July 2011, we declined to grant leave and said we would give reasons later. This we now do. 4.The applications arose in respect of those parts of the defendants’ appeals which were successful, namely:
5.In respect of the wrongful termination issue, the important questions which are said to arise are these:
6.Apart from the fact that we did not consider the issues to be reasonably arguable as a matter of law, the questions are contract specific, and therefore not appropriate as questions of general importance. 7.In relation to the damages awards for defamation, the issues of importance which were said to arise are these:
8.Save for question (4), the questions are case-specific. 9.As for question (4), we think the answer is beyond argument but in any event was not in this case determinative of the quantum issue. 10.There was a notice of motion by the defendants for leave to cross-appeal on certain questions arising in relation to the Employment Ordinance but, given our determination in respect of the plaintiffs’ applications, the defendants’ application was not pursued. We accordingly made no order in respect of that application. 11.We ordered that the costs of the plaintiffs’ applications be to the defendants, to be taxed if not agreed.
Mr Clive Grossman, SC and Mr Kam Cheung, instructed by Messrs Chiu, Szeto & Cheng, for the Plaintiffs Mr Robin McLeish, instructed by Messrs Mayer Brown JSM, for the Defendants | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 268/2009