Yee Fat Investments & Co. Ltd. v. David Charles Diniz

LDPD1945 OF 2002

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

LANDS TRIBUNAL APPLICATION LDPD NO.1945 OF 2002

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1. Mr. David Charles Diniz, the Respondent of Application No. LDPD 1945 of 2002 was not satisfied with the order given on 9 September 2002 in respect of the aforesaid application. He filed in the Form No.1 on 10 September 2002 requesting for a review of the order on the ground that he has been given an employment offer by a US company in joint venture with a company based at Beijing/Tianjin for manufacturing of fire engines/appliances. The employment terms are under negotiation but, as he envisaged, will be settled within 2 to 3 months time.

2. He disclosed in court that if employed, he would be based at Hong Kong playing a liaison role between the US company and the China based company. At times, he would be required to travel to Beijing or Tianjin to monitor the production of fire engines/appliances. He is asking for a salary of $35,000 per month from the US company, but he anticipated that the finally agreed wage might be in the region of $25,000 per month. As his subsistence spending is no more than $3,000 or $4,000 a month, he would then have sufficient money to pay back by instalments the arrears plus the on going rent. The giving of a grace period of three months on top of the four weeks allowed by the order granted on 9 September 2002 would enable him to continue his negotiation with the US company. In the event of such grace period being unavailable, he would have to move out soon, become homeless and lose the chance to finalize his employment deal, and would of course, be unable to pay back the arrears to the landlord. Nonetheless, Mr. Diniz was unwilling to disclose the name of the US company in open court for fearing that his negotiation with the US company would be jeopardized. He also admitted that the Hong Kong branch office of the US company, to which he would work, is yet to be formed. The location of the Hong Kong office is also yet to be identified although it would be a small scale one and pose no insurmountable problem to set up. He has no document concerning his employment offer and terms from the US company for filing with the Tribunal, and he has not had any mechanical training, which is normally considered required in connection with manufacturing of fire engines/appliances. However, he considered his experience in jewellery making is a recompense of his lack of training in the mechanical engineering field. In fact, the joint venture company undertakes no more than just assembling parts imported from US.

3. The Applicant's solicitor strongly opposed the granting of any grace period to Mr. Diniz on the following grounds: -

(a)	There is no evidence that a job is on offer to Mr. Diniz. Even if it were true, there is no certainty that Mr. Diniz will eventually get it; and
(b)	Mr. Diniz owes the landlord to date almost 9 month's rent, further delay in taking back possession of the subject premises will result in greater financial loss on the part of the landlord.

Decision

4. I have carefully considered the arguments from both sides and of the view that there is no certainty that Mr. Diniz will get the job within 3 months time. If a further grace period of 3 months were to be granted, the landlord's interest might be at stake. As the ground of Mr. Diniz's request is meagre, I hereby confirm that the order given on 9 September 2002 in respect of Application No. LDPD 1945 of 2002 be maintained. The Applicant should also be awarded the costs of the hearing held on 20 September 2002.