NORTON YAN-YAN SUSAN AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG AIRLINES LTD

NORTON YAN-YAN SUSAN AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG AIRLINES LTD

Leave was refused because clause 5, properly construed, does not bar pro‑rata gratuities where the employer terminates without cause; the final sentence requiring an employee to be 'employed' on the third anniversary refers to employee‑initiated notice or termination with cause and cannot be read to allow the employer to defeat the gratuity; the representation to Captain Dalpian was actionable (collateral contract) and/or gave rise to estoppel by convention, entitling him to a pro‑rata gratuity.

Citation
NORTON YAN-YAN SUSAN AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG AIRLINES LTD
Parties
Claimant: Ms Norton; Claimant: Captain Dalpian; Defendant (appellant): Hong Kong Airlines Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 June 2010
Case Number
HCLA8/2010
Procedural Posture
Employment Contract / Labour Tribunal Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Gratuity, Contract Construction, Collateral Contract, Estoppel by Convention, Representation
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Contract Law Labour Law Equity Gratuity Contract Construction Collateral Contract Estoppel by Convention +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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Norton

Claimant

Captain Dalpian

Claimant

Hong Kong Airlines Limited

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Employment Contract / Labour Tribunal Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 5 of the employment agreement entitled employees to pro‑rata gratuity when employer terminates without cause
  2. 2 Whether the requirement that the employee be 'employed' on the third anniversary excludes gratuity where employer gave notice and paid in lieu
  3. 3 Whether pre‑contractual representation to Captain Dalpian was actionable as a collateral contract

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because clause 5, properly construed, does not bar pro‑rata gratuities where the employer terminates without cause; the final sentence requiring an employee to be 'employed' on the third anniversary refers to employee‑initiated notice or termination with cause and cannot be read to allow the employer to defeat the gratuity; the representation to Captain Dalpian was actionable (collateral contract) and/or gave rise to estoppel by convention, entitling him to a pro‑rata gratuity.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.