The Hong Kong & Kowloon Pet Medical Centre Ltd v Susan Ann Roberts

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date09 July 2007
Judgement NumberDCCJ5393/2006
Subject MatterCivil Action
DCCJ005393/2006 THE HONG KONG & KOWLOON PET MEDICAL CENTRE LTD v. SUSAN ANN ROBERTS

DCCJ5393/2006

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5393 OF 2006

______________________

BETWEEN

THE HONG KONG & KOWLOON PET MEDICAL CENTRE LIMITED Plaintiff
and
SUSAN ANN ROBERTS Defendant

______________________

Coram : Her Honour Judge H.C. Wong in Chambers (Open to Public)

Date of Hearing : 9 July 2007

Date of Delivery of Decision : 9 July 2007

______________________

D E C I S I O N

______________________

1. The plaintiff claims against the defendant after the re-amendment of the Statement of Claim on 12 January 2007 for damages due to the defendant’s repudiation of the contract of employment.

2. The plaintiff took out a summons for Order 14 summary judgment on 29 January this year. The application came before Deputy Judge Wahab on 26 April 2007. At the hearing, the Judge Wahab raised a point on jurisdiction of the District Court in the plaintiff’s claim, as it involved a claim under an employment contract that, in the consideration of Judge Wahab, the Labour Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction. He adjourned the summons sine die with liberty to restore.

3. The application was restored and the parties made a submission on jurisdiction of the District Court in the plaintiff’s claim today before me.

4. To decide the issue, one has to consider the Labour Tribunal Ordinance, Cap. 25 section 7. It provides that:

S.7 The jurisdiction of the tribunal.
(1). The tribunal shall have jurisdiction to inquire and to hear and determine the claim specified in the schedule.
(2). Save as is provided in this Ordinance, no claim within the jurisdiction of the tribunal shall be actionable in any court in Hong Kong.”

The schedule stated:

(1) A claim for a sum of money which arises from –
(a) the breach of a term whether express or implied, of a contract of employment, whether for performance in Hong Kong or under a contract to which Contracts for Employment Outside Hong Kong Ordinance (Cap. 78) applies.”

Subsections (aa) and (b) do not really affect these proceedings.

5. It is the submission of Mr Wong, counsel for the plaintiff, that the plaintiff’s claim is based on the fact that the defendant had sent a letter on 26 October 2006, giving notice to...

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