A travel agent supervisor took her ex-employer to court yesterday to get back a $70,000 diamond ring she claimed to have won in a lucky draw. Anne Ng Yuet-ngor, 32, told the District Court she had planned to wear the one-carat ring at her wedding and considered it a lucky symbol. Ms Ng, who refused to hand it to the company, was eventually sacked by Double Fortune Travel, the court heard. She is suing Double Fortune and its managing director, Li Wai-keung, for damages because the ring is being held by the competition co-organiser, United Airlines, until the dispute is resolved. Ms Ng, who joined the company in October 1994, also seeks a declaration that she is the 'rightful recipient and owner' of the ring. Judge Christopher Chan Cheuk heard that in October 1995, Ms Ng entered a draw organised by United Airlines and five travel agencies. Ms Ng testified she and a colleague had received 14 raffle coupons after selling the same number of airline tickets. On January 26, 1996, she was informed by the airline that she had won the grand prize, the court heard. But later she was told by her firm's managing director that the prize did not belong to her. 'Mr Li told me either I could pay $20,000 for the prize or let him make a copy of my ID card and he would get it instead,' Ms Ng said. She claimed Mr Li had told her that other colleagues had previously kept prizes in similar competitions only because they were of little value. Five days later Ms Ng received a letter of dismissal, citing her allegedly unexplained absence from work one morning, the court heard. However, Ms Ng told the court she had asked to have the morning off work. Her lawyer, Rupert Spicer, said the company spread news of Ms Ng's dismissal to other travel agencies which were led to believe she had been fired for unspecified improper conduct. Ms Ng also seeks an injunction against publication of similar remarks. Lawyer Benjamin Chain, for Double Fortune, argued it was the company's policy that any prizes be divided between all employees. Double Fortune has filed a counter-claim seeking a declaration that the ring belongs to the firm. The case continues.
