SCOTT WILLIAMS v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

SCOTT WILLIAMS v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

The appeal is allowed because the Deputy Presiding Officer erred in law and on evidence: there was no legal basis to imply a term into clause 6.2 that CPA must exhaust assessments before recruiting DEFO (such an implied term conflicts with express clause 7.2.c), paragraph 7.1 of the Ops Manual must be read subject to CPA's requirements, and the critical findings that claimant would have been ready, suitable and the next most senior suitable SO by Feb 2008 lacked necessary evidential foundation and proper methodology; accordingly the Tribunal's finding that claimant was eligible for bypass pay from 1 March 2008 is unsustainable.

Citation
SCOTT WILLIAMS v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD
Parties
Claimant (respondent): Scott Williams; Defendant (appellant): Cathay Pacific Airways Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 November 2010
Case Number
HCLA24/2009
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Promotion, Bypass Pay, Implied Terms, Contract Interpretation, Damages, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Contract Law Labour Law Promotion Bypass Pay Implied Terms Contract Interpretation Damages +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scott Williams

Claimant (respondent)

Cathay Pacific Airways Limited

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 6.2 gave rise to an implied obligation to exhaust assessments of Second Officers before recruiting Direct Entry First Officers
  2. 2 Whether paragraph 7.1 of the Ops Manual required URB meetings whenever there were FO openings, lack of suitable SO and SO ready for assessment
  3. 3 Whether claimant was entitled to automatic progression after approximately 18 months under clause 7.2.b

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because the Deputy Presiding Officer erred in law and on evidence: there was no legal basis to imply a term into clause 6.2 that CPA must exhaust assessments before recruiting DEFO (such an implied term conflicts with express clause 7.2.c), paragraph 7.1 of the Ops Manual must be read subject to CPA's requirements, and the critical findings that claimant would have been ready, suitable and the next most senior suitable SO by Feb 2008 lacked necessary evidential foundation and proper methodology; accordingly the Tribunal's finding that claimant was eligible for bypass pay from 1 March 2008 is unsustainable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Respondent's Notice dismissed as irregular for lack of leave to appeal
  • Order nisi that the claimant pay the defendant's costs of the appeal, including costs of the application for leave to appeal, but excluding costs of amending the grounds of appeal, to be taxed if not agreed