CLUB DELUXE LTD. v. CLUB METROPOLITAN LTD.

CLUB DELUXE LTD. v. CLUB METROPOLITAN LTD.

The Court held as a matter of fact that D2's employment contract had been abrogated by his transfer to Macau so the restrictive covenants did not survive or were unenforceable in their operation; there was no tortious liability established against D2 or D1 because requisite knowledge, intent and proven damage were not made out; the trial judge erred in placing an excessive evidential burden on D3 regarding Ex C244 and on reappraisal the plaintiff failed to prove the document was signed by D3, so the cross-appeal succeeds and the trial award against D3 is set aside and substituted by judgment for the amounts specified.

Citation
CLUB DELUXE LTD. v. CLUB METROPOLITAN LTD.
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Club Deluxe Limited; 1st Defendant/respondent: Club Metropolitan Limited; 2nd Defendant/respondent: David Yu Tak Yuen; 3rd Defendant/respondent: Mona Chan Chun Yin
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 June 1994
Case Number
CACV152/1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Trial Court
Outcome
Appeal by plaintiff dismissed in its entirety; cross-appeal by 3rd respondent allowed in part
Legal Topics
Wrongful Interference With Contract, Restraint of Trade, Restrictive Covenants, Forgery of Signature, Burden of Proof in Civil Forgery Allegations, Measure of Damages, Abrogation/rescission of Contract, Inducement to Breach
Source Language
EN
Tort Contract Employment Law Evidence Law Wrongful Interference With Contract Restraint of Trade Restrictive Covenants Forgery of Signature +4 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Club Deluxe Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Club Metropolitan Limited

1st Defendant/respondent

David Yu Tak Yuen

2nd Defendant/respondent

Mona Chan Chun Yin

3rd Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Trial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether D2's written employment contract was abrogated by his transfer to Macau and whether restrictive covenants survived
  2. 2 Whether clauses in restraint of trade (clauses 11 and 12) were enforceable
  3. 3 Whether D2 tortiously induced D3 to breach her contract

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held as a matter of fact that D2's employment contract had been abrogated by his transfer to Macau so the restrictive covenants did not survive or were unenforceable in their operation; there was no tortious liability established against D2 or D1 because requisite knowledge, intent and proven damage were not made out; the trial judge erred in placing an excessive evidential burden on D3 regarding Ex C244 and on reappraisal the plaintiff failed to prove the document was signed by D3, so the cross-appeal succeeds and the trial award against D3 is set aside and substituted by judgment for the amounts specified.

Court Disposition

Appeal by plaintiff dismissed in its entirety; cross-appeal by 3rd respondent allowed in part

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • 3rd respondent's cross-appeal allowed.