|
HCA010623A/1997
1997, No.A10623
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
---------------
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
HOUSTON CHRISTINE MARIE |
Plaintiff |
|
|
|
|
AND |
|
|
|
|
|
TASA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED |
1st Defendant |
|
TASA HOLDING AG |
2nd Defendant |
|
SQUIRES MICHAEL THOMAS DICKSON, sued on behalf of himself and all other partners, other than the Plaintiff in the 'TASA' Partnership |
3rd Defendant |
---------------
Coram : The Hon Mrs Justice Le Pichon in Chambers
Date of Hearing : 31 October 1997
Date of Decision : 31 October 1997
Date of Handing Down Reasons: 10 November 1997
Date of Addendum : 13 November 1997
-----------------------------------------
ADDENDUM TO REASONS
-----------------------------------------
1. The question of costs of the hearing before Rogers J. on 9 October 1997 remains outstanding. At the hearing on 31 October, I had indicated that I would deal with the matter at the time the reasons were handed down. That was overlooked and I deal with the matter now.
2. The Plaintiff made an application that she be awarded the costs of that hearing at which she obtained interim relief, albeit limited relief. The Plaintiff submits that she had no option but to take out the application on 8 October because she had been wrongfully excluded from the office : locks had been changed and staff had been told that she was to be refused entry to the office.
3. Counsel for the Defendants referred to TASA's letter of 22 September. It is apparent from the terms of that letter that the Plaintiff was expected to return to the office to work out her notice. Prior to 22 September, there had been a doctor's certificate issued on 13 September to the effect that the Plaintiff should be on sick leave until 26 September. On 23 September, a second doctor's certificate was issued to the effect that she should be on sick leave until 15 October. After receiving the second doctor's certificate, the Defendants made the decision to deny the Plaintiff entry into TASA Hong Kong office computer network only; they also considered that it was not appropriate for a partner in the condition described in the doctor's certificate to be working and to be contacting clients and candidates. The denial of access was therefore meant to be temporary, to last only till 15 October. On that basis, they submit that the Plaintiff's application was wholly premature.
4. Having regard to these matters and to the disposal of the Plaintiff's application for a continuation of the limited interim relief granted, the appropriate order in all the circumstances is that there be no order as to costs for the hearing before Rogers J. on 9 October 1997.
|
(Doreen Le Pichon) |
|
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
Representation:
Mr Paul Carolan, inst'd by M/s Horvath & Giles, for Plaintiff
Mr Simon Westbrook, inst'd by M/s Fairbairn Catley Low & Kong, for 1st and 3rd Defendants
|