RAY CHEN v. TARAMUS RUS AND ANOTHER

RAY CHEN v. TARAMUS RUS AND ANOTHER

The Court found the Plaintiff not credible and the evidence established a consensual personal relationship with the First Defendant; the Plaintiff first alleged sexual harassment only at his exit interview after a dismissal that the Court found was for legitimate business reasons. The Second Defendant discharged any employer liability by showing reasonably practicable steps (policy, training and management action) under s.46. The ex parte Prohibition Order was obtained with material non-disclosure by the Plaintiff which was deliberate and malicious; accordingly the Plaintiff's substantive claims were dismissed and the Plaintiff was ordered to pay costs and specified damages to the First...

Citation
RAY CHEN v. TARAMUS RUS AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Ray Chen; First Defendant: Taramus Rus; Second Defendant: IBM (HK) LTD
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 April 2000
Case Number
DCEO2/1999
Procedural Posture
Equal Opportunities Action (sex Discrimination) / Judgment at Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims dismissed in full; costs and compensation awarded to Defendants in relation to the wrongful Prohibition Order
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Victimisation, Vicarious Liability, Prohibition Order (ex Parte), Costs and Damages
Source Language
EN
Sex Discrimination Employment Law Civil Procedure Sexual Harassment Victimisation Vicarious Liability Prohibition Order (ex Parte) Costs and Damages

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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ray Chen

Plaintiff

Taramus Rus

First Defendant

IBM (HK) LTD

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equal Opportunities Action (sex Discrimination) / Judgment at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant sexually harassed the Plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the Second Defendant victimised the Plaintiff by dismissal
  3. 3 Whether the employer is vicariously liable and/or has a s.46 defence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the Plaintiff not credible and the evidence established a consensual personal relationship with the First Defendant; the Plaintiff first alleged sexual harassment only at his exit interview after a dismissal that the Court found was for legitimate business reasons. The Second Defendant discharged any employer liability by showing reasonably practicable steps (policy, training and management action) under s.46. The ex parte Prohibition Order was obtained with material non-disclosure by the Plaintiff which was deliberate and malicious; accordingly the Plaintiff's substantive claims were dismissed and the Plaintiff was ordered to pay costs and specified damages to the First...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims dismissed in full; costs and compensation awarded to Defendants in relation to the wrongful Prohibition Order

Orders

  • Claim dismissed against First and Second Defendants
  • Order nisi that First and Second Defendants are entitled to costs of this action with certificate for Counsel; to be made absolute after 14 days from date of judgment