X v. MELVYN KAI FAN LAI AND ANOTHER

X v. MELVYN KAI FAN LAI AND ANOTHER

Claim dismissed as out of time: claimant failed to produce the written EOC certification required by s86(2A) and the court would not exercise the s86(3) discretion because delay was substantial, unexplained and prejudicial; on merits claimant failed to prove unlawful sexual harassment on balance of probabilities, and there was no cogent corroboration or pattern sufficient to establish sexual conduct by the respondent.

Citation
[2018] HKDC 1485
Parties
Claimant: X; 1st Respondent: Melvyn Kai Fan Lai; 2nd Respondent: Leigh & Orange Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 November 2018
Case Number
DCEO4/2016
Procedural Posture
Equal Opportunities Action Under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance – Sexual Harassment in Employment / Judgment After Full Trial in District Court
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Vicarious Liability, Limitation Period, Statutory Defence Under Section 46(3) SDO
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Anti Discrimination Law Civil Procedure Limitation Sexual Harassment Vicarious Liability Limitation Period Statutory Defence Under Section 46(3) SDO

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Claimant

Melvyn Kai Fan Lai

1st Respondent

Leigh & Orange Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Equal Opportunities Action Under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance – Sexual Harassment in Employment / Judgment After Full Trial in District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claim was time‑barred under SDO limitation provisions including s86 and s86(2A)/(3)
  2. 2 Whether 1st respondent committed unlawful sexual harassment under SDO s2(5) and s23(3)
  3. 3 Whether claimant was motivated by retaliatory motive relating to boyfriend’s dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

Claim dismissed as out of time: claimant failed to produce the written EOC certification required by s86(2A) and the court would not exercise the s86(3) discretion because delay was substantial, unexplained and prejudicial; on merits claimant failed to prove unlawful sexual harassment on balance of probabilities, and there was no cogent corroboration or pattern sufficient to establish sexual conduct by the respondent.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's claim against 1st and 2nd respondents dismissed
  • Costs: costs awarded to respondents for claimant's application to amplify witness statement on first day; otherwise order nisi that each party bear its own costs pursuant to section 73B(3) of the District Court Ordinance