CHEUNG TING WAN AND OTHERS v. RIS COMPUTERS LTD.

CHEUNG TING WAN AND OTHERS v. RIS COMPUTERS LTD.

The court held that for employees employed after 16 January 1984 (11th–21st) there was no enforceable variation and the appeal is allowed as to them; for earlier employees (1st–10th, 22nd and 23rd) the tribunal was entitled to find an implied term or variation: the commission scheme operated as an incentive and supplied consideration (extra effort and continued service), the scheme continued after the trial period as evidenced by payments, the distribution method was sufficiently certain because the formulae and mode of calculation were available, and quantum should be assessed using the same formula including the performance factor; overpayments must be repaid and costs to be determined.

Citation
CHEUNG TING WAN AND OTHERS v. RIS COMPUTERS LTD.
Parties
Claimants/respondents: Cheung Ting Wan and 22 others; Defendant/appellant: RIS COMPUTERS LTD.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 June 1986
Case Number
HCLA16/1986
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / High Court Appeal Decision (deputy High Court Judge Barnett)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Contract Variation, Consideration, Certainty of Terms, Quantum of Damages, Commission Schemes
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Implied Terms Contract Variation Consideration Certainty of Terms Quantum of Damages +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Ting Wan and 22 others

Claimants/respondents

RIS COMPUTERS LTD.

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / High Court Appeal Decision (deputy High Court Judge Barnett)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employees were contractually entitled to commission
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's introduction and payments under a commission scheme varied individual employment contracts or created implied terms
  3. 3 Whether consideration supported any variation or promise to pay commission

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that for employees employed after 16 January 1984 (11th–21st) there was no enforceable variation and the appeal is allowed as to them; for earlier employees (1st–10th, 22nd and 23rd) the tribunal was entitled to find an implied term or variation: the commission scheme operated as an incentive and supplied consideration (extra effort and continued service), the scheme continued after the trial period as evidenced by payments, the distribution method was sufficiently certain because the formulae and mode of calculation were available, and quantum should be assessed using the same formula including the performance factor; overpayments must be repaid and costs to be determined.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Appeal allowed for 11th to 21st respondents; those respondents must repay any payments made to them pursuant to the Presiding Officer's decision
  • Appeal dismissed for 1st to 10th, 22nd and 23rd respondents except on quantum of payment