Leung Ting How And Another v Leung Sing Po Supervisor Of School Of Chinese Artists Association Of Hk

Judgment Date03 March 1970
Subject MatterCivil Action
Judgement NumberDCCJ4890/1969
CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
DCCJ004890/1969 LEUNG TING HOW AND ANOTHER v. LEUNG SING PO SUPERVISOR OF SCHOOL OF CHINESE ARTISTS ASSOCIATION OF HK

DCCJ004890/1969

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 4890 OF 1969

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

BETWEEN:
1. Leung Ting How Plaintiffs
2. Lai Chi Keung
AND
Leung Sing Po Supervisor of School of Chinese Artists Association of H.K. Defendant

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

Coram: Cons, D.J.

Date of Judgment: 3 March 1970

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. In the early part of last year the first and second plaintiffs were respectively the head teacher and a class teacher in the School of the Chinese Artists Association of Hong Kong. The defendant was the registered supervisor of the school, but the impression I gained was that he was rather more in the position of a Chairman of a Board of Governors and that the actual running of the school and its day-to-day management was in the hands of the principal. Up to the beginning of March last year that office was held by a gentleman of the the name of LAI Chi-cheung. He was to some extent suffering from ill-health and probably for this reason the Board replaced him by a lady CHAN Shiu-mee. Unfortunately there appears to have been a clash of personalities between the new principal and the head teacher, complicated by a difference of opinion as to the fees collected by the head teacher for the month of February, that is the first month of that particular school term. There was some dispute as to whether or not it was the head teacher's regular duty to collect such fees, or whether on this particular occasion he acted merely to oblige the old principal, but the dispute is not material. It is accepted that on this particular occasion, duty or otherwise, he did so. The actual fees, it would seem, were collected from the pupils by their own class teachers and passed on, in this instance, to the head teacher who would in due course account to the supervisor for the Association. Following the financial dispute the Board of the Association decided to dismiss the head teacher, doing so in a letter from the supervisor dated the 9th of April. At the same time a similar letter was sent to the second plaintiff. No reason was given at the trial for coupling him with the head teacher, but I assume that there was also a question of personality.

2. There is considerable contradiction between the evidence of the head teacher on the one hand, and the supervisor and the new principal on the other. The head teacher gave me the feeling of a stubborn, small-minded man, prone under cross-examination to change his ground when hard pressed; the new principal, although obviously deeply personally involved, I thought generally reliable; of the supervisor I formed an extremely favourable view. In the circumstances I came to the conclusion that with regard to any matter which was disputed the evidence of the defence was to be preferred.

3. Very soon after the service of the Writ the defence filed a Counterclaim against the head teacher alleging a general deficiency of just over $1,000 in respect of the disputed fees. That figure is based on accounts made up by the new principal. I must mention that on the second day of the trial, that is some three weeks after the first day, she appeared to contracdict her earlier evidence as to the source of the information upon which she based her accounts, but the details receive support from the document Exhibit 7, a circular to parents setting out the fees which were to be charged by the school for the term in question, and which was discovered at the school during the adjournment. I am satisfied that these accounts correctly set out the fees which should have been collected by the head teacher, and the proper balance which was due from him to the school. He himself adduced nothing to support the accuracy of his financial statement. When cross-examined he did show to defendant counsel...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT