JUDGMENT

GROUNDS OF DECISION

THE CLAIM

The Plaintiff's claim rests on two letters of appointment dated 1.10.93 ("the 1st letter of appointment") and that dated 19.9.1994 ("the 2nd letter of appointment") respectively. In respect of the claim under the 1st letter of appointment the Plaintiff alleged that he was not paid the amount prescribed therein and the Defendant was therefore liable to pay the difference between the prescribed minimum guaranteed income and the amount actually paid to him.

As for the claim under the 2nd letter of appointment, the Plaintiff alleged that he was entitled to the benefits in accordance with the status of a "Crown Diamond" Distributor of the Defendant, and sought for an order that the Defendant produce accounts and pay him in accordance with such a status.

THE DEFENCE AND COUNTER-CLAIM

The Defendant denied liability. In respect of the claim under the 1st letter of appointment, the Defendant's case was that the Plaintiff was not entitled to be paid the minimum guaranteed income for the period claimed due to the existence of an oral agreement discharging the Defendant from paying the Plaintiff the prescribed minimum guaranteed income. As to the claim under th