Cooks get into fight over takeaway order

Southampton Crown Court

Southampton Crown Court

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Court Reporter

THE owner of a Chinese takeaway suffered a cut finger and had hot oil spilt over his hand when he tried to pacify a cook in the kitchen of his takeaway, Southampton Crown Court heard.

Uproar broke out when two cooks clashed over the way orders should be processed.

A judge heard the row escalated when Ray Dilworth threw a punch at Yuchiu Wong who retaliated in similar fashion but missed.

Prosecutor Rod Blain said Wong grabbed a cleaver in the preparation area in The Peony in West End and waved it around.

The owner, known as Joe, intervened but in disarming the chef, cut a finger.

Wong however picked up a saucepan and scooped up hot oil from a deep fat fryer.

Again ‘Joe’ stepped in and, in the struggle, some of the oil spilt on to his hand and also on the floor.

The drama ended when a delivery driver took Wong, who had previously owned the takeaway, outside.

The court heard that as a result of the fracas, the takeaway had to close early with the loss of hundreds of pounds worth of business.

Wong, 58, of Seaton Close, West End, admitted affray.

He received a 12 month community order and was told to pay his victim £1,000 compensation for his injury and loss of business that night.

He must also observe a curfew from 2am-2pm for six weeks and pay a £60 victim surcharge.

Recorder Peter Towler told the father-of-three: “I am satisfied this was completely out of character and there is a very minimal risk of you re-offending.”

Stephen Tricker, defending, said Wong had lost his temper in a highly charged atmosphere.

“Things escalated out of control, it wasn’t planned but spontaneous and quickly over.”

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:06am Sat 28 Jun 14

rudolph_hucker says...

I think it is funny
I think it is funny rudolph_hucker
  • Score: -2

6:49am Sat 28 Jun 14

KA says...

this is soo wong
this is soo wong KA
  • Score: 5

7:29am Sat 28 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

His case was sent to the Crown Court at great expense to us all because the magistrates believed their sentencing powers (6 months) were inadequate. He got a lower sentence, one well within magistrates' range. This happens all the time and is a disgraceful waste of money. Give magistrates sentencing powers of 12 months for a single offence and save a fortune. After all, if Wong had been 17, magistrates could have given him up to 2 years.
His case was sent to the Crown Court at great expense to us all because the magistrates believed their sentencing powers (6 months) were inadequate. He got a lower sentence, one well within magistrates' range. This happens all the time and is a disgraceful waste of money. Give magistrates sentencing powers of 12 months for a single offence and save a fortune. After all, if Wong had been 17, magistrates could have given him up to 2 years. Dai Rear
  • Score: 10

8:47am Sat 28 Jun 14

Big Mac says...

Seems like they got in a right old two and eight, and I'm still waiting on ticket number nine!
Seems like they got in a right old two and eight, and I'm still waiting on ticket number nine! Big Mac
  • Score: 6

11:43am Sat 28 Jun 14

shirlski says...

I had a bit of a heavy night last night and woke up this morning and found loads of little Chinese sailing boats in my toilet, that's it I thought...no more Junk food!
I had a bit of a heavy night last night and woke up this morning and found loads of little Chinese sailing boats in my toilet, that's it I thought...no more Junk food! shirlski
  • Score: 3

12:32pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Yorkyboy22 says...

There are no phone books in China. There are so many Wings and so many Wongs you could easily dial the Wong number.
I'll get my coat.........
There are no phone books in China. There are so many Wings and so many Wongs you could easily dial the Wong number. I'll get my coat......... Yorkyboy22
  • Score: 3

1:58pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

Ah Soo egg fried rice!
Ah Soo egg fried rice! Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: -1

2:47pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Stubs says...

I wonder who had the lucky food order whilst the fight was on. Probably some finger nail dirt thrown in with with prawn crackers. Very tasty!
I wonder who had the lucky food order whilst the fight was on. Probably some finger nail dirt thrown in with with prawn crackers. Very tasty! Stubs
  • Score: 0

5:01pm Sat 28 Jun 14

wilson castaway says...

sore finger.
sore finger. wilson castaway
  • Score: 2

7:14pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Stubs says...

Sounds like faulty towers.
Sounds like faulty towers. Stubs
  • Score: 2

8:04pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Graeme Harrison says...

Dai Rear wrote:
His case was sent to the Crown Court at great expense to us all because the magistrates believed their sentencing powers (6 months) were inadequate. He got a lower sentence, one well within magistrates' range. This happens all the time and is a disgraceful waste of money. Give magistrates sentencing powers of 12 months for a single offence and save a fortune. After all, if Wong had been 17, magistrates could have given him up to 2 years.
Well, unless you know (which is different from speculating and trying to show off to an audience that knows even less about the law than you) more than this article is telling us, the Defendant could have elected for a crown court trial since affray is triable either way (section 3(7) POA 1986).
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: His case was sent to the Crown Court at great expense to us all because the magistrates believed their sentencing powers (6 months) were inadequate. He got a lower sentence, one well within magistrates' range. This happens all the time and is a disgraceful waste of money. Give magistrates sentencing powers of 12 months for a single offence and save a fortune. After all, if Wong had been 17, magistrates could have given him up to 2 years.[/p][/quote]Well, unless you know (which is different from speculating and trying to show off to an audience that knows even less about the law than you) more than this article is telling us, the Defendant could have elected for a crown court trial since affray is triable either way (section 3(7) POA 1986). Graeme Harrison
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree