The Appeal
Cathay fails to block payout to '49ers'
Yvonne Tsui
Dec 16, 2009
Cathay Pacific (SEHK: 0293) has failed to stop a judgment ordering it to pay more than HK$61 million to eighteen of the "49ers" - the pilots sacked en masse during an industrial dispute in 2001 - despite the airline having an appeal under way......
......Yesterday Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes, of the Court of First Instance, declined a request from the airline for a stay of execution of the judgment he gave on November 11.
Launching the application on behalf of the airline, barrister Robin McLeish indicated to the court that the airline had filed an appeal against Reyes' judgment. Refusing the request, Reyes said: "I don't see that there is very strong ground for success. There is absolutely no reason for me to grant a stay."
Yvonne Tsui
Dec 16, 2009
Cathay Pacific (SEHK: 0293) has failed to stop a judgment ordering it to pay more than HK$61 million to eighteen of the "49ers" - the pilots sacked en masse during an industrial dispute in 2001 - despite the airline having an appeal under way......
......Yesterday Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes, of the Court of First Instance, declined a request from the airline for a stay of execution of the judgment he gave on November 11.
Launching the application on behalf of the airline, barrister Robin McLeish indicated to the court that the airline had filed an appeal against Reyes' judgment. Refusing the request, Reyes said: "I don't see that there is very strong ground for success. There is absolutely no reason for me to grant a stay."
Much respect for Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes...he is one tough cookie and is nobody's fool.
Cool as a moosp
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mostly Hong Kong
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no knowledge of the legal department and (more importantly) their advisers in Cathay Pacific in this case, but I have some general knowledge of legal departments of large corporations. (Legal disclaimer over).
The legal department and their advisers know that they have an iron rice bowl. That is, they cannot be sacked. Their clients, the company, consist mostly of managers who have slight knowledge of legal procedures. These clients, driven still by a perceived sword of Damoclese from London, cannot take the honourable way out. It would show a weakness and a lack of cojones to the Swire brothers.
Let us remember that a directors meeting or meetings with Sir John present was or were held before the 49's sacking. I do not know whether the minutes of this or these board meetings have been subpoened in this case but a good legal team in the case should have attempted their access. I suspect, with no prior knowledge, that they might prove contempt of a witness.
We know by watching our leaders in other industries being screwed by the lawyers of anyone from the government to their wives, that attaining the level of a director in a company does not necessarily give a senior manager more jurisprudence that a junior lawyer in their legal department. Directors are often very badly advised.
I believe that it is apparent that the legal advisers to CX (the CX legal department are no more than clerks in this case) need to justify their enormous fees. They screwed up once, so they need to blame the judge's decision as a reason to appeal. And they are on a win - win too, as when they fail at the appeal they will still get paid.
As T N Tiler pointed out above, when a judge indicates that the appeal is unlikely to be successful, he is speaking from a level of experience way beyond the barrister.
It has been said in the hallowed halls of the legal profession in Hong Kong that the higher the appeal the closer the Governor. (Sorry, Chief Executive...). This may or may not imply that Beijing may take a minor interest in this. If they do, I defy anyone to make a prediction, as one faction of the Beijing executive will root for labour, the other for their Swire friends.
The many other employers in Hong Kong watch with trepidation. If Swire lose, labour wins. With the post colonial attitudes held by the directors of so many Hong Kong and southern China companies, a legal decision in favour of labour would be their world's end.
You can see why the lunch tables of the Hong Kong Club are more full and tremulous than usual. This is Beyond Swire.
The legal department and their advisers know that they have an iron rice bowl. That is, they cannot be sacked. Their clients, the company, consist mostly of managers who have slight knowledge of legal procedures. These clients, driven still by a perceived sword of Damoclese from London, cannot take the honourable way out. It would show a weakness and a lack of cojones to the Swire brothers.
Let us remember that a directors meeting or meetings with Sir John present was or were held before the 49's sacking. I do not know whether the minutes of this or these board meetings have been subpoened in this case but a good legal team in the case should have attempted their access. I suspect, with no prior knowledge, that they might prove contempt of a witness.
We know by watching our leaders in other industries being screwed by the lawyers of anyone from the government to their wives, that attaining the level of a director in a company does not necessarily give a senior manager more jurisprudence that a junior lawyer in their legal department. Directors are often very badly advised.
I believe that it is apparent that the legal advisers to CX (the CX legal department are no more than clerks in this case) need to justify their enormous fees. They screwed up once, so they need to blame the judge's decision as a reason to appeal. And they are on a win - win too, as when they fail at the appeal they will still get paid.
As T N Tiler pointed out above, when a judge indicates that the appeal is unlikely to be successful, he is speaking from a level of experience way beyond the barrister.
It has been said in the hallowed halls of the legal profession in Hong Kong that the higher the appeal the closer the Governor. (Sorry, Chief Executive...). This may or may not imply that Beijing may take a minor interest in this. If they do, I defy anyone to make a prediction, as one faction of the Beijing executive will root for labour, the other for their Swire friends.
The many other employers in Hong Kong watch with trepidation. If Swire lose, labour wins. With the post colonial attitudes held by the directors of so many Hong Kong and southern China companies, a legal decision in favour of labour would be their world's end.
You can see why the lunch tables of the Hong Kong Club are more full and tremulous than usual. This is Beyond Swire.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the ammount of the award will not go up. CX are appealing points of law and 3 judges will consider the points and make judgement on those areas which will uphold or change the ruling.
Of course Reyes doesnt think that they have much of a chance of winning an appeal, he passed the original judgement and obviously thinks he is right. Don't get too excited, CX could easily win this in the end.
Of course Reyes doesnt think that they have much of a chance of winning an appeal, he passed the original judgement and obviously thinks he is right. Don't get too excited, CX could easily win this in the end.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'The Company had been tracking attendance records, in great detail, for 30 months prior to July 2001 and the 49ers were selected, primarily, on the basis of their attendance records i.e. their level of participation in the so-called “Sick Out” campaign.'
He's probably busy having his arse reamed out for writing stupid things in newsletters.
He's probably busy having his arse reamed out for writing stupid things in newsletters.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defamation?
He's probably busy having his arse reamed out for writing stupid things in newsletters.
Further, I believe the agreement for those guys who gave away their "right to sue" for the re-employment interview only encompassed legal action for unfair dismissal, not defamation, especially since this potential defamatory statement was made subsequent to the signing of that agreement.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Yarra
Age: 54
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rhodes didn't have "attendance records in great detail" or any proof of any 49er being in a sick out. If he had records or proof wouldn't he have produced them as evidence in court?
Whilst it shocks me to think of the DFO as less than truthful, let's recap. Tyler and Chen were found guilty of defaming the 49ers in a court ruling six weeks ago. If Broadband Circuit is right, Rhodes has now defamed not just the 18 who took Cathay to court and won, but the other 30 odd 49ers that the Company settled with out of court.
Rhodes might have dropped himself in the
.with this one.
Whilst it shocks me to think of the DFO as less than truthful, let's recap. Tyler and Chen were found guilty of defaming the 49ers in a court ruling six weeks ago. If Broadband Circuit is right, Rhodes has now defamed not just the 18 who took Cathay to court and won, but the other 30 odd 49ers that the Company settled with out of court.
Rhodes might have dropped himself in the
.with this one.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The Company had been tracking attendance records, in great detail, for
30 months prior to July 2001 and the 49ers were selected, primarily, on
the basis of their attendance records i.e. their level of participation
in the so-called “Sick Out” campaign."
Check it out - these words have been removed from the 11th December DFO Update. Perhaps Cathay management agree - those statements are defamatory. Why else were they removed?
30 months prior to July 2001 and the 49ers were selected, primarily, on
the basis of their attendance records i.e. their level of participation
in the so-called “Sick Out” campaign."
Check it out - these words have been removed from the 11th December DFO Update. Perhaps Cathay management agree - those statements are defamatory. Why else were they removed?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like a new 49ers case over at Air Hong Kong. Some First Officer was suspended for calling in sick. Now they want to sack him for trying to appeal. Star Chamber at it again.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: az
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So. What happens if NR and SK are found guilty of purgery? How will this affect other cases currently in the system, such as the S/O labour tribunal case, the past F/A cases, etc.... I imagine the court will censure these individuals past sworn testimony, delete any information they have given in trials, and re-judge these cases.
Does anybody know Hong Kong law in this respect?
Does anybody know Hong Kong law in this respect?
Last edited by airplaneridesrfun; 17th Mar 2010 at 00:44.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airplaneridesrfun
So. What happens if NR and SK are found to have purgered themselves in court?
Of course, perjury would be a gravely serious issue, with the clear possibility of a custodial sentence. NR and SK would not enjoy the company of Ah Triad and his mates!
However, that was when they gave evidence as witnesses in a prior matter. If this case goes to trial, they will be the accused. They will then have proper cause to purger themselves in court!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts