CHAN KING LAM v. PETER PUN MANAGEMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER

HCA9938/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.9938 OF 1999

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This is the trial of an action brought by the plaintiff Chan King Lam against the 1st and 2nd defendants. The 1st defendant being Peter Pun Management Ltd and the 2nd defendant being Peter Pun Architects Ltd.

2. The action was called upon today having been adjourned from last week. Notices were sent to the defendants by the court but unfortunately today the defendants are absent.

3. Mr Chan, the plaintiff, gave good evidence to this court. He told the court that he was employed in late 1992 and he worked for both the 1st and 2nd defendants even though technically when he first signed the Contract of Employment, it was signed with the 1st defendant. I think the evidence clearly shows that most of the work was done, in fact, for the 2nd defendant although there was considerable overlap of the work of the 1st and 2nd defendants. It is, however, clear from the Exhibit P1 which was produced, that the amount of the sum which the plaintiff claimed as being his wages or salary owing to him was owed by the 1st as well as the 2nd defendant. By the document exhibit P1 with the chop of Peter Pun Architects Ltd and signed by Mr Pun himself on behalf of the 2nd defendant, the total sum of $716,200 as salary owing up to July 1998 was acknowledged by the 2nd defendant. So far as acknowledgement by the 1st defendant Peter Pun Management Ltd is concerned, the document produced to the court, Exhibit P2, which was a document signed as part of the negotiation settlement organized by the Labour Tribunal, is a document dated October 1998 signed by Mr Pun, the son of Peter Pun, on behalf of the 1st defendant whereby it was acknowledged that the 1st defendant company owes the money of $617,200 to the plaintiff as wages.

4. I have therefore no doubt that the first item of the four items of claim made by the plaintiff against the two defendants has been established, namely the sum of $617,200 as arrears of wages from 1994 until 1998. The second item claimed by the plaintiff which I also accept is the sum of $15,000 being the one month pay in lieu of notice and that sum is also owed by the two defendants to the plaintiff. The third item of claim made by the plaintiff which I also accept is the severance pay provided by the Employment Ordinance of Hong Kong whereby an employee is entitled to severance payment calculated on the basis of the last month pay, namely $15,000 x 2/3 x the total years in the employment of the defendants. In this case it should be 5.73 calculated on the basis from November 1992 to July 1998. So, the amount owing by the defendants to the plaintiff in respect of severance pay is the sum of $57,300. The three items totalled the sum of $689,500. This is the sum which should have been paid and ought to have been paid certainly not long after the plaintiff was sent away by the defendants. Notwithstanding the promise made by the defendants to the Labour Tribunal, that the amount owing would be paid and by the latest, I think, some time in March 1999, no payment was made. I have no doubt, therefore, in all the circumstances of this case, that the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the total sum of $689,500. In order that the interest payment at a fair rate can be easily calculated, it seems to me that in all the circumstances that the proper interest payment I should order is at a flat rate of 10% per year for a period from 14 March 1999 until today, which I have worked out to be 2.876 years. Therefore, the interest that the plaintiff is entitled to should be $689,500 x 10% x 2.876, namely a figure of $198,300.20. The plaintiff is entitled to payment of that interest plus the sum of $689,500 which I have referred to earlier, which come to a grand total sum of $887,800.20 and this is the judgment that the plaintiff is entitled to enter against the 1st and 2nd defendants. The plaintiff is also entitled to costs of the action against the defendants.