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 judged by its terms and the parties' conduct, established that the 1st and 2nd defendants were servants/managers authorized by Clause 1 and proviso (a) to Clause 9 to engage staff on behalf of the appellants and in the appellants' name; consequently the claimants were employees of the appellants and the Labour Tribunal's decision in favour of the claimants 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: TSE PAK KAN alias Peter TSE; 2nd Claimant/respondent: LAU CHE KEUNG; 3rd Claimant/respondent: HON WAI KWONG; Claimant/respondent: LAU SAU LUEN alias Rosline LAU; 1st Claimant/respondent (lta3): HO CHO YUEN; 2nd Claimant/respondent (lta3): FUNG WAI KEI; 3rd Claimant/respondent (lta3): FRANCIS CHEN; 4th Claimant/respondent (lta3): LEE CHI CHEONG TELAN; 5th Claimant/respondent (lta3): HSU BOBBY; 6th Claimant/respondent (lta3): YAU KWOK KEUNG; 7th Claimant/respondent (lta3): POON KIN SANG; 8th Claimant/respondent (lta3): IU KONG IM; 9th Claimant/respondent (lta3): TSUI YEE WAH BRUMA; Claimant/respondent (lta4): LI PAK MOON; 1st Claimant/respondent (lta5): TUNG SIK HUNG; 2nd Claimant/respondent (lta5): FONG YUN FAT; 3rd Claimant/respondent (lta5): CHEUNG CHEUNG HIN; 4th Claimant/respondent (lta5): LEE KA WOO; 5th Claimant/respondent (lta5): LAU CHI WING; 6th Claimant/respondent (lta5): CHAN SHAN HING BOTTY; 7th Claimant/respondent (lta5): LEUNG KIN YIP alias LEUNG CHUN HING
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 October 1979
Case Number
DCMP1/1979
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (district Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service Agreement Construction, Employee Status, Authorization to Hire, Subcontracting Prohibition, Costs
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Contract Law Labour Law Agency Law Vicarious Liability Service Agreement Construction Employee Status Authorization to Hire +2 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

LAU CHE KEUNG

2nd Claimant/respondent

HON WAI KWONG

3rd Claimant/respondent

LAU SAU LUEN alias Rosline LAU

Claimant/respondent

HO CHO YUEN

1st Claimant/respondent (lta3)

FUNG WAI KEI

2nd Claimant/respondent (lta3)

FRANCIS CHEN

3rd Claimant/respondent (lta3)

LEE CHI CHEONG TELAN

4th Claimant/respondent (lta3)

HSU BOBBY

5th Claimant/respondent (lta3)

YAU KWOK KEUNG

6th Claimant/respondent (lta3)

POON KIN SANG

7th Claimant/respondent (lta3)

IU KONG IM

8th Claimant/respondent (lta3)

TSUI YEE WAH BRUMA

9th Claimant/respondent (lta3)

LI PAK MOON

Claimant/respondent (lta4)

TUNG SIK HUNG

1st Claimant/respondent (lta5)

FONG YUN FAT

2nd Claimant/respondent (lta5)

CHEUNG CHEUNG HIN

3rd Claimant/respondent (lta5)

LEE KA WOO

4th Claimant/respondent (lta5)

LAU CHI WING

5th Claimant/respondent (lta5)

CHAN SHAN HING BOTTY

6th Claimant/respondent (lta5)

LEUNG KIN YIP alias LEUNG CHUN HING

7th Claimant/respondent (lta5)

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants were employees of the appellants or merely sub‑servants of the 1st and 2nd defendants
  2. 2 Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants were authorized under the service agreement (D2) to engage staff on behalf of the appellants
  3. 3 How to construe the service agreement D2 and the effect of parties' conduct on that construction

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement D2, read as a whole and judged by its terms and the parties' conduct, established that the 1st and 2nd defendants were servants/managers authorized by Clause 1 and proviso (a) to Clause 9 to engage staff on behalf of the appellants and in the appellants' name; consequently the claimants were employees of the appellants and the Labour Tribunal's decision in favour of the claimants is affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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