Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Implied terms (officious bystander/moorcock)

Legal area

Court

13 Jun 1985

PANALPINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. ULRICH HALDEMANN

Citation

PANALPINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. ULRICH HALDEMANN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9664/1982

The court found the alleged oral agreement by the managing director was not binding because there was no consideration and the managing director lacked authority to bind the company on dismissal decisions (those rested with Head Office); the employees' failure to attend as directed constituted a breach rendering summary dismissal lawful under the contract; accordingly the wrongful dismissal claim failed, but limited vested contractual entitlements (two months' leave pay and a repatriation ticket) were payable; the tenancy was subject to an implied term that it was conditional on continued emp…
13 Jun 1985

ULRICH HALDEMANN v. PANALPINA (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

ULRICH HALDEMANN v. PANALPINA (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1658/1984

The dismissal was lawful: the decisive authority to dismiss resided with Head Office and the alleged oral extension by the local manager did not create enforceable contractual rights due to absence of consideration and lack of authority to bind the company; however the claimant had vested entitlements to two months' leave pay and a return airfare which must be paid; the tenancy contained an implied term that Panalpina would only pay the inflated rent while the claimant remained its employee, so Panalpina validly determined the tenancy on employment termination.

Hong Kong Case Law

PANALPINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. ULRICH HALDEMANN

ULRICH HALDEMANN v. PANALPINA (HONG KONG) LTD