YUEN OI YEE LISA v. HEATH CO LTD AND OTHERS

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. HEATH CO LTD AND OTHERS

The letters exchanged on 20 May and 26 May 2003 and the apology letter of 24 May 2003, read plainly, constituted a full and final settlement of any claim by the plaintiff against the 1st defendant in relation to contact with all three ex-employers; without prejudice communications could not be used to contradict the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
YUEN OI YEE LISA v. HEATH CO LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Yuen Oi Yee Lisa; 1st Defendant: Heath Company Limited; 2nd Defendant: Desa International Inc.; 3rd Defendant: H.I.G. Capital
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 March 2005
Case Number
HCMP2038/2004
Procedural Posture
High Court Court of Appeal — Leave to Appeal (miscellaneous Proceedings) / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Striking Out in DCCJ No. 5441 of 2003
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; order nisi for costs in favour of the 1st defendant
Legal Topics
Section 66 Personal Data (privacy) Ordinance, Settlement Agreement Interpretation, Without Prejudice Communications Admissibility, Application to Strike Out, Costs
Source Language
en
Personal Data/privacy Defamation Civil Procedure Settlement/contract Employment Law Section 66 Personal Data (privacy) Ordinance Settlement Agreement Interpretation Without Prejudice Communications Admissibility +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yuen Oi Yee Lisa

Plaintiff

Heath Company Limited

1st Defendant

Desa International Inc.

2nd Defendant

H.I.G. Capital

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Court of Appeal — Leave to Appeal (miscellaneous Proceedings) / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Striking Out in DCCJ No. 5441 of 2003

  1. 1 Whether the settlement correspondence constituted a full and final settlement of any claim relating to contact with all three ex-employers
  2. 2 Whether without prejudice communications could be used to vary or explain the clear terms of the written settlement
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the striking out order

Ratio Decidendi

The letters exchanged on 20 May and 26 May 2003 and the apology letter of 24 May 2003, read plainly, constituted a full and final settlement of any claim by the plaintiff against the 1st defendant in relation to contact with all three ex-employers; without prejudice communications could not be used to contradict the clear written terms, and therefore leave to appeal was refused and costs ordered to the 1st defendant.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; order nisi for costs in favour of the 1st defendant

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Order nisi that the 1st defendant is to have the costs of this application to be made absolute without further order unless the plaintiff makes written submissions to the contrary within 14 days