VERMEERBERGEN PETER ALFRED v. SWISSTRIBE LTD

VERMEERBERGEN PETER ALFRED v. SWISSTRIBE LTD

The appeal was allowed because the Presiding Officer erred in law by failing to make proper enquiry and order production of documents in the defendant's possession that were directly relevant to whether the claimant had 'approached' the ultimate accounts (orders placed via intermediaries) and by adopting a narrower factual criterion (direct customer only) without adequate inquiry or reasons; that failure rendered the Tribunal's determination on the claimed commissions unsafe and required remittal for retrial by a different presiding officer.

Citation
VERMEERBERGEN PETER ALFRED v. SWISSTRIBE LTD
Parties
Appellant / Claimant: VERMEERBERGEN PETER ALFRED; Respondent / Defendant: SWISSTRIBE LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 December 2016
Case Number
HCLA36/2015
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal (appeal From Labour Tribunal Claim LBTC 1570 of 2014) / Appeal to Court of First Instance — Judgment on Appeal Remitting Claim for Retrial
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; claim for claimed commission remitted to the Labour Tribunal for retrial; security reinstated; costs orders made
Legal Topics
Commission Entitlement, Wages in Lieu of Notice, Discovery/production of Documents, Tribunal Inquisitorial Duty, Adequacy of Reasons, Remittal for Retrial
Source Language
EN
Labour Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Commission Entitlement Wages in Lieu of Notice Discovery/production of Documents Tribunal Inquisitorial Duty +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VERMEERBERGEN PETER ALFRED

Appellant / Claimant

SWISSTRIBE LIMITED

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal (appeal From Labour Tribunal Claim LBTC 1570 of 2014) / Appeal to Court of First Instance — Judgment on Appeal Remitting Claim for Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Presiding Officer failed in his statutory inquisitorial duty under s20 to investigate and order production of documents relevant to claimed commissions
  2. 2 Whether the PO applied an incorrect criterion (direct customer only) rather than the contractual criteria (managed, co-managed or approached) in dismissing claimed commissions
  3. 3 Whether the PO misunderstood or denied availability of discovery procedure at the Tribunal and thereby prejudiced the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the Presiding Officer erred in law by failing to make proper enquiry and order production of documents in the defendant's possession that were directly relevant to whether the claimant had 'approached' the ultimate accounts (orders placed via intermediaries) and by adopting a narrower factual criterion (direct customer only) without adequate inquiry or reasons; that failure rendered the Tribunal's determination on the claimed commissions unsafe and required remittal for retrial by a different presiding officer.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; claim for claimed commission remitted to the Labour Tribunal for retrial; security reinstated; costs orders made

Orders

  • The claimant's claim for the Claimed Commission is remitted to the Labour Tribunal for re-trial by another presiding officer
  • The balance of the security previously paid out to the defendant pursuant to the PO's order dated 7 September 2015 is reinstated; the defendant shall pay the same into the Tribunal within 14 days