Turn and burn,
Getting back to the point of the case, you said:
The argument is that the 49ers were dismissed without having been given a reason, the implication being that the dismissals were unjustified.
You are wrong.
The contracts of the 49ers were terminated - they were not dismissed. If Cathay choses to try to argue that they were dismissed then they will be on a very sticky wicket because they did not follow the procedure contained within the contract. This is why Cathay tried so very hard to have the case thrown out on jurisdictional issues - they DO NOT want to argue the case in court. The case will be argued on it's merits because that's what lawyers do. This is real life - not TV!!
For those of you who rely on the Sun for your judgement of others - my sympathies.
PS. My own opinion is that Cathay will try to settle before the court date (if they can) or will simply admit the charges without entering any evidence.
PPS. Let's say that Cathay did try to prove that there was a case for dismissal (which they won't for the reason that I have already given). They would look pretty dumb if they tried to introduce an event that seems to have occurred BEFORE Capt Crofts joined Cathay - wouldn't they? A shame then that Cathay's lawyers are undoubtedly able to think more clearly than some that post on this forum.
Last edited by Ricky Whizz; 3rd Apr 2006 at 10:14.