‘Employment agreement’ a disguised tenancy: failure to plead the terms of the alleged ‘true’ agreement

In Chau Yu v Kwan Chuen Kuen (No 2) ([1964] HKLR 309, CA) P was the tenant of some shop premises. P had entered into an employment agreement with D under which D was to manage the menswear department of the shop for four years. He was to have the right to use three showcases in the shop for his own purposes. D argued that the agreement was not an employment agreement but was a sub-lease. At the same time, he accepted that the terms of the employment agreement accurately reflected the agreement between P and D. D failed. He had not pleaded the terms of the alleged tenancy. He had not, for example, clearly stated what the extent of the demised premises would be.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: