AMOR LIVE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSE PAK KAN AND OTHERS

AMOR LIVE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSE PAK KAN AND OTHERS

The agreement D2, read as a whole and in light of the parties' conduct, established the 1st and 2nd defendants as servants of the appellants with express authority (Clause 9(a) and Clause 1) to employ staff in the name of the appellants; therefore the claimants were employees of the appellants and the Labour Tribunal's decision is affirmed.

Citation
AMOR LIVE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSE PAK KAN AND OTHERS
Parties
3rd Defendant/appellant: Amor Live Holdings Ltd.; 4th Defendant/appellant: Amor Coffee House Ltd.; 1st Claimant/respondent (lta No.1/79): Tse Pak Kan alias Peter Tse; 2nd Claimant/respondent (lta No.1/79): Lau Che Keung; 3rd Claimant/respondent (lta No.1/79): Hon Wai Kwong; Claimant/respondent (lta No.2/79): Lau Sau Luen alias Rosline Lau; 1st Claimant/respondent (lta No.3/79): Ho Cho Yuen; 2nd Claimant/respondent (lta No.3/79): Fung Wai Kei; 3rd Claimant/respondent (lta No.3/79): Francis Chen; 4th Claimant/respondent (lta No.3/79): Lee Chi Cheong Telan; 5th Claimant/respondent (lta No.3/79): Hsu Bobby; 6th Claimant/respondent (lta No.3/79): Yau Kwok Keung; 7th Claimant/respondent (lta No.3/79): Poon Kin Sang; 8th Claimant/respondent (lta No.3/79): Iu Kong Im; 9th Claimant/respondent (lta No.3/79): Tsui Yee Wah Bruma; Claimant/respondent (lta No.4/79): Li Pak Moon; 1st Claimant/respondent (lta No.5/79): Tung Sik Hung; 2nd Claimant/respondent (lta No.5/79): Fong Yun Fat; 3rd Claimant/respondent (lta No.5/79): Cheung Cheung Hin; 4th Claimant/respondent (lta No.5/79): Lee Ka Woo; 5th Claimant/respondent (lta No.5/79): Lau Chi Wing; 6th Claimant/respondent (lta No.5/79): Chan Shan Hing Botty; 7th Claimant/respondent (lta No.5/79): Leung Kin Yip alias Leung Chun Hing
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 October 1979
Case Number
DCMP3/1979
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeals to District Court / Judgment on Appeal (dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Service Agreement, Employment Status, Authority to Hire, Vicarious Liability, Costs
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Contract Law Labour Law Tort Law Service Agreement Employment Status Authority to Hire Vicarious Liability +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amor Live Holdings Ltd.

3rd Defendant/appellant

Amor Coffee House Ltd.

4th Defendant/appellant

Tse Pak Kan alias Peter Tse

1st Claimant/respondent (lta No.1/79)

Lau Che Keung

2nd Claimant/respondent (lta No.1/79)

Hon Wai Kwong

3rd Claimant/respondent (lta No.1/79)

Lau Sau Luen alias Rosline Lau

Claimant/respondent (lta No.2/79)

Ho Cho Yuen

1st Claimant/respondent (lta No.3/79)

Fung Wai Kei

2nd Claimant/respondent (lta No.3/79)

Francis Chen

3rd Claimant/respondent (lta No.3/79)

Lee Chi Cheong Telan

4th Claimant/respondent (lta No.3/79)

Hsu Bobby

5th Claimant/respondent (lta No.3/79)

Yau Kwok Keung

6th Claimant/respondent (lta No.3/79)

Poon Kin Sang

7th Claimant/respondent (lta No.3/79)

Iu Kong Im

8th Claimant/respondent (lta No.3/79)

Tsui Yee Wah Bruma

9th Claimant/respondent (lta No.3/79)

Li Pak Moon

Claimant/respondent (lta No.4/79)

Tung Sik Hung

1st Claimant/respondent (lta No.5/79)

Fong Yun Fat

2nd Claimant/respondent (lta No.5/79)

Cheung Cheung Hin

3rd Claimant/respondent (lta No.5/79)

Lee Ka Woo

4th Claimant/respondent (lta No.5/79)

Lau Chi Wing

5th Claimant/respondent (lta No.5/79)

Chan Shan Hing Botty

6th Claimant/respondent (lta No.5/79)

Leung Kin Yip alias Leung Chun Hing

7th Claimant/respondent (lta No.5/79)

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeals to District Court / Judgment on Appeal (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants were employees of the appellants or sub‑servants of the nightclub managers
  2. 2 Whether the managers (1st and 2nd defendants) were authorized under the service agreement to employ staff on behalf of the appellants
  3. 3 Whether the label of the contract as a service agreement or its true nature is decisive or whether conduct and contractual terms determine authority to hire

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement D2, read as a whole and in light of the parties' conduct, established the 1st and 2nd defendants as servants of the appellants with express authority (Clause 9(a) and Clause 1) to employ staff in the name of the appellants; therefore the claimants were employees of the appellants and the Labour Tribunal's decision is affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs on the upper scale for the respondents legally represented.