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.
