MCGUIRE MICHAEL JOHN EDMUND v. AGW HOLDINGS LTD t/a A G WILKINSON & ASSOCIATES AND ANOTHER

MCGUIRE MICHAEL JOHN EDMUND v. AGW HOLDINGS LTD t/a A G WILKINSON & ASSOCIATES AND ANOTHER

Termination was wrongful because alleged misconduct lacked particulars and evidence; Oral Agreements I and II were not proven, and in any event were vague and unworkable; the Plaintiff was in reality continuously employed despite the consultancy vehicle, entitling him to long service payment and owed referral fees; quantum awarded on that basis.

Citation
MCGUIRE MICHAEL JOHN EDMUND v. AGW HOLDINGS LTD t/a A G WILKINSON & ASSOCIATES AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: McGuire Michael John Edmund; 1st Defendant: AGW Holdings Limited trading as A G Wilkinson & Associates; 2nd Defendant: Tam Yiu Cho
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 November 2003
Case Number
HCA4984/2001
Procedural Posture
Employment Wrongful Dismissal and Contract Dispute / Judgment (court of First Instance, 10 November 2003)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed; Counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Wrongful Termination, Characterisation of Employment Vs Consultancy, Oral Agreement/enforceability, Long Service Payment, Referral Commission Entitlement, Estoppel, Damages and Interest
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Contract Law Company Law Equity and Restitution Wrongful Termination Characterisation of Employment Vs Consultancy Oral Agreement/enforceability Long Service Payment +3 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

McGuire Michael John Edmund

Plaintiff

AGW Holdings Limited trading as A G Wilkinson & Associates

1st Defendant

Tam Yiu Cho

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment Wrongful Dismissal and Contract Dispute / Judgment (court of First Instance, 10 November 2003)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the Plaintiff's employment wrongfully terminated?
  2. 2 Whether Oral Agreement I and II (oral arrangements to forgo remuneration) were valid and enforceable defenses to the Plaintiff's claims
  3. 3 Quantum of remedies owed to the Plaintiff if termination was wrongful

Ratio Decidendi

Termination was wrongful because alleged misconduct lacked particulars and evidence; Oral Agreements I and II were not proven, and in any event were vague and unworkable; the Plaintiff was in reality continuously employed despite the consultancy vehicle, entitling him to long service payment and owed referral fees; quantum awarded on that basis.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim allowed; Counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Holdings (1st Defendant) to pay Plaintiff outstanding referral fees HK$577,809.10
  • Holdings to pay unused annual leave HK$39,526.35