CHEN RAYMOND v. LO SAN AND OTHERS

CHEN RAYMOND v. LO SAN AND OTHERS

Plaintiff failed to prove on balance of probabilities that he was a person under disability at the relevant time; the gym's rule to return weights was a legitimate, reasonable and proportionate safety and nuisance measure; termination was for repeated breaches and uncooperative conduct, not because of disability; therefore harassment, indirect and direct discrimination and victimisation claims fail.

Citation
CHEN RAYMOND v. LO SAN AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Chen Raymond; 1st Defendant: Lo San (also known as Lo Ka Po); 2nd Defendant: Chan Miran; 3rd Defendant: Physical Health Centre Hong Kong Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 July 2007
Case Number
DCEO4/2003
Procedural Posture
Disability Discrimination and Harassment (disability Discrimination Ordinance) / Judgment (district Court)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Harassment, Indirect Discrimination, Direct Discrimination, Discrimination by Victimisation, Contractual Refund Dispute
Source Language
EN
Discrimination Equal Opportunities Law Civil Litigation Disability Discrimination Harassment Indirect Discrimination Direct Discrimination Discrimination by Victimisation +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 8 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chen Raymond

Plaintiff

Lo San (also known as Lo Ka Po)

1st Defendant

Chan Miran

2nd Defendant

Physical Health Centre Hong Kong Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Disability Discrimination and Harassment (disability Discrimination Ordinance) / Judgment (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Plaintiff was a person under disability at the relevant time
  2. 2 Whether requirement to return dumbbells and weight-plates constituted harassment
  3. 3 Whether the regulation amounted to unjustifiable indirect discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove on balance of probabilities that he was a person under disability at the relevant time; the gym's rule to return weights was a legitimate, reasonable and proportionate safety and nuisance measure; termination was for repeated breaches and uncooperative conduct, not because of disability; therefore harassment, indirect and direct discrimination and victimisation claims fail.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed