Hills v Niksun Inc

Hills v Niksun Inc

Niksun failed to discharge its evidential burden to show its commission allocation decision was rational; the judge was entitled to determine the Point of Influence as the UK and allocate two-thirds commission to Mr Hills based on the contractual terms and evidence.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mark Hills; Defendant/appellant: Niksun Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contractual Discretion, Commission Entitlement, Bonus Payments, Burden of Proof
Employment Law Contract Law Contractual Discretion Commission Entitlement Bonus Payments Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Hills

Claimant/respondent

Niksun Inc

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Niksun's discretion in commission allocation was broad or constrained
  2. 2 Whether the Point of Influence was correctly determined
  3. 3 Whether Niksun's decision was rational and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Niksun failed to discharge its evidential burden to show its commission allocation decision was rational; the judge was entitled to determine the Point of Influence as the UK and allocate two-thirds commission to Mr Hills based on the contractual terms and evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Commission allocation to Mr Hills at two-thirds for the APAC deal upheld