ALESSANDRO GUARINO v. QUASAR ENGINEERING LTD

ALESSANDRO GUARINO v. QUASAR ENGINEERING LTD

The court refused to strike out the impugned pleadings and witness statement passages because the claimant has pleaded a substantive disability discrimination claim under the DDO for which the District Court has exclusive jurisdiction, the respondent failed to show it was plain and obvious the discrimination and consequential PESO damages claims were bound to fail, and the contested witness material is relevant to pleaded issues and not plainly scandalous or irrelevant such that pretrial expunction is justified.

Citation
[2024] HKDC 2159
Parties
Claimant: Alessandro Guarino; Respondent: Quasar Engineering Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 December 2024
Case Number
DCEO6/2023
Procedural Posture
Equal Opportunities Action (disability Discrimination Under Ddo) / Application to Strike Out (summons Dated 3 May 2024); Hearing 17 Dec 2024; Decision 20 Dec 2024
Outcome
Summons dismissed; impugned paragraphs not struck out
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Constructive Dismissal, Strike Out Applications, Witness Statement Expunction, Damages and Equitable Remedies, Stock Option Entitlements (peso)
Source Language
EN
Discrimination Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Disability Discrimination Constructive Dismissal Strike Out Applications Witness Statement Expunction Damages and Equitable Remedies +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alessandro Guarino

Claimant

Quasar Engineering Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Equal Opportunities Action (disability Discrimination Under Ddo) / Application to Strike Out (summons Dated 3 May 2024); Hearing 17 Dec 2024; Decision 20 Dec 2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pleaded discrimination and constructive dismissal allegations should be struck out as pure employment claims for the Labour Tribunal
  2. 2 Whether the District Court has jurisdiction over the discrimination claim under the DDO
  3. 3 Whether the claimant can recover PESO entitlement as loss consequential on discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to strike out the impugned pleadings and witness statement passages because the claimant has pleaded a substantive disability discrimination claim under the DDO for which the District Court has exclusive jurisdiction, the respondent failed to show it was plain and obvious the discrimination and consequential PESO damages claims were bound to fail, and the contested witness material is relevant to pleaded issues and not plainly scandalous or irrelevant such that pretrial expunction is justified.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; impugned paragraphs not struck out

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Each party to bear its own costs of the Summons pursuant to s73C(3) District Court Ordinance Cap 336