IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 295 OF 2004
(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 3552 OF 2003)
Before: Hon Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA in Court
Date of Hearing: 11 November 2004
Date of Judgment: 11 November 2004
J U D G M E N T
Hon Rogers VP:
1. This is an appeal from a ruling of Deputy High Court Judge Saunders given at a hearing on 12 August 2004. The applicationbefore the judge was an application that the trial date which had been fixed should be vacated and re-fixed so that it would comeafter the hearing of what has been referred to as ‘the employment action’.
2. The judge’s ruling was commendably short and I do not wish in this judgment to do anything which would indicate that itshould have been anything other than short and I do not wish to lengthen this myself. Very briefly, the judge came to the conclusionthat the live issue will be whether or not the two documents should be read together and construed together and what the consequencesof that will be in the light of the fact that it is common ground that the service agreement had been terminated.
3. In my view, looking at the pleadings, the judge was correct. The matters raised in paragraph 22 of the defence are notthe matters which Mr Tong SC has sought to raise this morning. Although there is a reference in paragraph 26(2) that “PCIH wasin breach of the Service Agreement which was accepted by the Defendant”, the allegation in paragraph 22 simply relies on the terminationof the employment agreement. In those circumstances I am not disposed to alter the judge’s ruling and, in my view, on the pleadingsas they stand at the moment, the trial should go ahead.
Hon Le Pichon JA:
4. I agree.
Mr Horace Wong SC, instructed by Messrs Richards Butler, for the Plaintiff/Respondent
Mr Ronny K W Tong SC and Mr Alexander Stock, instructed by Messrs Dibb Lupton & Alsop, for the Defendant/Appellant