Would you sign this?
Seems someone really wants to get these court cases over with. Would you sign this after being unfairly dismissed only to go for an interview? This is really taking care of your members.
4. Governing law and jurisdiction
The terms of this offer are governed by Hong Kong law. By accepting any part of the offer the former officer is acknowledging that the courts of Hong Kong have exclusive jurisdiction to hear any dispute, complaint or controversy relating to this offer and waives any objection to proceedings in such courts on the grounds of venue or on the grounds that the proceedings have been brought in an inconvenient forum.
1. THE HKAOA’S OBLIGATION
(a) In consideration of Cathay’s undertakings set out in Clause 2 above, but subject to sub-clause (b) below, the HKAOA undertakes:-
(i) immediately to cease assisting (directly or indirectly) any of the Terminated Pilots in any existing Legal Action against Cathay, Veta Limited or USA Basing Limited or any Relevant Person,
(ii) not to assist (directly or indirectly) any of the Terminated Pilots in any future Legal Action against any Relevant Person, and
(iii) not to assist any other person (being an individual, corporation or any unincorporated organisation, society or union) in assisting, whether directly or indirectly, any Legal Action (whether an existing Legal Action or a future Legal Action) by any of the Terminated Pilots against any Relevant Person.
For the purpose of the above:-
“assist” includes, but is not limited to:-
∑ financial assistance,
∑ the provision of advice or facilities which operate to facilitate any person in bringing or continuing a Legal Action, or
∑ any act which would encourage any person to bring or continue a Legal Action.
“Legal Action” means:-
∑ Actions brought in the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, Nos. HCMP 4400 of 2001 and HCA 2822 of 2002, by John Simpson Warham and 22 others against Cathay Pacific Airways Limited and Veta Limited;
∑ Actions brought in the Employment Tribunal of England and Wales, Nos. 2304383/01 and others, by George Andrew Crofts and 11 others against Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, Veta Limited and USA Basing Limited;
∑ Appeal brought in the Court of Appeal of England, Ref: A1/2004/1485, (On Appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal No. HKEAT/0367 & 8/03/DA) by George Andrew Crofts and 11 others against Veta Limited, Cathay Pacific Airways Limited and USA Basing Limited in relation to the Employment Tribunal’s decision regarding preliminary aspects of Employment Tribunal claim Nos. 2304383/01 & others;
∑ Complaint filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, USA, Case No. BC259052, by Hendrick Van Keulen and 8 others against Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, USA Basing Limited, Veta Limited, Tony Tyler and Philip Chen Nan-lok;
∑ Proceedings filed in Australia by Mark Andrew Evans and 4 others against Cathay Pacific Airways Limited and Veta Limited;
∑ any complaint, action, suit, cause of action, proceeding, arbitration or demand (in each case whether contractual, tortious, statutory or otherwise) relating to the employment of any of the Terminated Pilots by Cathay, Veta Limited or USA Basing Limited prior to the date of this Agreement or the termination of such employment.
“Relevant Person” means Cathay and any subsidiary or holding company of Cathay (or any subsidiary of a holding company of Cathay) and their officers and employees (both past and present).
“Terminated Pilot” includes the estate of Gregory Stephen England.
(b) Each of the undertakings of the HKAOA set out in sub-clause (a) above are conditional upon the membership of the HKAOA passing a resolution in favour of the terms of the offer set out in this Agreement and the offer letter on 15th February, 2005 (or such later date as Cathay and the HKAOA may agree).
DAMAGES NOT AN ADEQUATE REMEDY
The HKAOA acknowledges that damages will not be an adequate remedy for a breach of the undertakings in Clause 3 above and, therefore, Cathay is entitled to an injunction to prevent a breach of such provisions or a continuation of any such a breach.
PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Both Cathay and the HKAOA agree not to make any public statements concerning this Agreement without the prior written approval of the other party.
AMENDMENT, WAIVER ETC.
(a) No failure on the part of any party to exercise and no delay on its part in exercising any right or remedy under this Agreement shall operate as a waiver of such right or remedy, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any right or remedy preclude any other or further exercise or the exercise of any other right or remedy.
(b) No provision of this Agreement may be amended, waived, discharged or terminated orally but any such amendment, waiver, discharge or termination shall only be effected by an instrument in writing signed by both Cathay and the HKAOA.
SEVERANCE
Any provision of this Agreement prohibited by or which is unlawful or unenforceable under any applicable law actually applied by any court of competent jurisdiction shall, to the extent required by such law, be severed from this Agreement and rendered ineffective so far as is possible without modifying the remaining provisions of this Agreement, and where the provisions of any such applicable law may be waived, they are hereby waived by Cathay and the HKAOA to the full extent permitted by such law to the effect that this Agreement shall be valid and binding and enforceable in accordance with its terms.
GOVERNING LAW
Cathay and the HKAOA agree:
that this Agreement is governed and is to be construed in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong; and
irrevocably and unconditionally to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Hong Kong to hear any dispute, complaint or controversy relating to this Agreement and waive any objection to proceedings in such courts on the grounds of venue or on the grounds that the proceedings have been brought in an inconvenient forum.