Juno Revolving Restaurant Ltd v Patty Kwok Hoi Chun

Court:District Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:DCCJ2383/1970
Judgment Date:13 Aug 1970
DCCJ002383/1970 JUNO REVOLVING RESTAURANT LTD v. PATTY KWOK HOI CHUN

DCCJ002383/1970

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 2383 OF 1970

-----------------

Between:
JUNO REVOLVING RESTAURANT LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
PATTY KWOK HOI CHUN Defendant

-----------------

Coram: N.B. Hooper, District Judge.

Date of Judgment: 13 August 1970

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. This is an action by an employer for damages for breach of contract, where an employee has left the employment without giving notice.

2. It is common ground in this case that the defendant was employed by the plaintiff company from the 4th of July 1968 until she left the employment of the plaintiff company without giving notice on the 17th of March, 1970. It is common ground also that at the time she left, the defendant was earning a salary of $250 per month and a half share in a fund which comprised of tips voluntarily given by customers of the restaurant together with sums collected by the restaurant as cover charges. It is also common ground that the defendant was entitled to free meals.

3. The plaintiffs claim that the average amount of a share of tips per month was $500 and that as the defendant was entitled to a half share of tips, the amount which she would normally recover would be $250. They also claim that the value of the free meals was $60 per month. These amounts are denied by the defendant, who does not however give any alternative figures. The plaintiffs further claim that these two sums are wages within the meaning of the Employment Ordinance, making the defendant's total monthly wage $560. This the defendant denies.

4. Originally the plaintiffs were claiming the sum of $560 representing one month's wages because the defendant had not given one month's notice according to an oral agreement made between her and the plaintiffs and in contravention to Sections 5 and 6 of the Employment Ordinance Cap. 57. During the course of the hearing the plaintiffs amended their claim to one of general damages.

5. The plaintiffs accept that it was a continuous contract of employment and that therefore the provisions of the Employment Ordinance apply. Although they had pleaded that there was an oral term in the contract for one month's notice, they have not succeeded in proving this. However, I am satisfied that by virtue of Section 5 of the Employment Ordinance, the period of notice required on termination of the contract, was one month. Section 6 of the Employment Ordinance provides an alternative to terminating the contract of employment by giving notice, and permits such termination without notice if a sum equal to the amount of wages which would have accrued to the employee during the period of notice is paid.

6. As the defendant in this case left the employment without giving one month's notice to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial