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 with the parties' conduct, established that the 1st and 2nd defendants were servants of the appellants and were expressly authorized (Clause 9(a) and Clause 1) to employ staff on behalf of and in the name of the appellants; consequently the successful 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: 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: HO CHO YUEN; 2nd Claimant/respondent: FUNG WAI KEI; 3rd Claimant/respondent: FRANCIS CHEN; 4th Claimant/respondent: LEE CHI CHEONG TELAN; 5th Claimant/respondent: HSU BOBBY; 6th Claimant/respondent: YAU KWOK KEUNG; 7th Claimant/respondent: POON KIN SANG; 8th Claimant/respondent: IU KONG IM; 9th Claimant/respondent: TSUI YEE WAH BRUMA; Claimant/respondent: LI PAK MOON; 1st Claimant/respondent: TUNG SIK HUNG; 2nd Claimant/respondent: FONG YUN FAT; 3rd Claimant/respondent: CHEUNG CHEUNG HIN; 4th Claimant/respondent: LEE KA WOO; 5th Claimant/respondent: LAU CHI WING; 6th Claimant/respondent: CHAN SHAN HING BOTTY; 7th Claimant/respondent: LEUNG KIN YIP alias LEUNG CHUN HING
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 October 1979
Case Number
DCMP4/1979
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeals to District Court / Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Employment Status, Service Agreement Construction, Authority to Hire/sub‑servants, Subletting/subcontracting, Costs
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Contract Law Labour Law Tort/vicarious Liability Employment Status Service Agreement Construction Authority to Hire/sub‑servants Subletting/subcontracting +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 3 Authorities cited 6 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

FUNG WAI KEI

2nd Claimant/respondent

FRANCIS CHEN

3rd Claimant/respondent

LEE CHI CHEONG TELAN

4th Claimant/respondent

HSU BOBBY

5th Claimant/respondent

YAU KWOK KEUNG

6th Claimant/respondent

POON KIN SANG

7th Claimant/respondent

IU KONG IM

8th Claimant/respondent

TSUI YEE WAH BRUMA

9th Claimant/respondent

LI PAK MOON

Claimant/respondent

TUNG SIK HUNG

1st Claimant/respondent

FONG YUN FAT

2nd Claimant/respondent

CHEUNG CHEUNG HIN

3rd Claimant/respondent

LEE KA WOO

4th Claimant/respondent

LAU CHI WING

5th Claimant/respondent

CHAN SHAN HING BOTTY

6th Claimant/respondent

LEUNG KIN YIP alias LEUNG CHUN HING

7th Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeals to District Court / Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants were employees of the appellants or only sub‑servants of the managers
  2. 2 Whether the 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 (service agreement) is decisive or whether conduct and contractual terms control the employment relationship

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement D2, read with the parties' conduct, established that the 1st and 2nd defendants were servants of the appellants and were expressly authorized (Clause 9(a) and Clause 1) to employ staff on behalf of and in the name of the appellants; consequently the successful 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 respondents legally represented.