POON CHUN HING v. HAI TAT TRANSPORTATION CO LTD

POON CHUN HING v. HAI TAT TRANSPORTATION CO LTD

The presiding officer's credibility findings and assessment of witness evidence were within his discretion; the receipts were generalised and did not prove an agreement to split the 26% commission as alleged; any minor failure to ask specific questions did not produce such injustice as to vitiate the hearing. Accordingly the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
POON CHUN HING v. HAI TAT TRANSPORTATION CO LTD
Parties
1st Claimant: Mr Poon; 2nd Claimant: Mr Ng; Employer / Appellant: Respondent/Applicant (employer)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 May 2006
Case Number
HCLA92/2005
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Awards; Application for Leave to Appeal on Point of Law / Application for Leave to Appeal After Review (point of Law)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Annual Leave Pay, Holiday Pay, Wages in Lieu of Notice, Commission Payment Agreements, Credibility and Witness Evaluation, Duty to Inquire by Tribunal
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Labour Tribunal Procedure Evidence Annual Leave Pay Holiday Pay Wages in Lieu of Notice Commission Payment Agreements Credibility and Witness Evaluation +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Poon

1st Claimant

Mr Ng

2nd Claimant

Respondent/Applicant (employer)

Employer / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Awards; Application for Leave to Appeal on Point of Law / Application for Leave to Appeal After Review (point of Law)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parties agreed that 26% commission was split into 23% wages, 2% annual leave/holiday pay and 1% accumulation fund
  2. 2 Whether 2nd claimant was dismissed without notice or resigned
  3. 3 Whether presiding officer failed in statutory duty to investigate relevant matters under Labour Tribunal procedure

Ratio Decidendi

The presiding officer's credibility findings and assessment of witness evidence were within his discretion; the receipts were generalised and did not prove an agreement to split the 26% commission as alleged; any minor failure to ask specific questions did not produce such injustice as to vitiate the hearing. Accordingly the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • No order as to costs