Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Commission disputes

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2016

VERMEERBERGEN PETER ALFRED v. SWISSTRIBE LTD

Citation

VERMEERBERGEN PETER ALFRED v. SWISSTRIBE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA36/2015

Leave to appeal was granted in part because the claimant established an arguable point of law that the Presiding Officer may have failed to discharge his statutory duty to investigate material missing invoices and documents and to give sufficient reasons regarding the commission award quantum; the intended challenge to the dismissal of the wages in lieu claim was not made out and leave was refused on that ground. Costs were reserved by making a costs order nisi apportioning the Leave Application costs.
11 Dec 2013

GLORY WELL (HONG KONG) LTD t/a TOUR ENTERPRISE (HK) CO v. TAK CHEUNG-TOKUSHO TRAVEL SERVICE LTD

Citation

GLORY WELL (HONG KONG) LTD t/a TOUR ENTERPRISE (HK) CO v. TAK CHEUNG-TOKUSHO TRAVEL SERVICE LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1618/2011

The court accepted Tour Enterprise's evidence that commissions were determined by Tour Enterprise under a classification scheme and rejected a fixed 1,000 JPY commission; Tour Enterprise was not an agent or fiduciary of Tak Cheung because the relationship was commercial, Tour Enterprise bore operational control, costs and risks and Tak Cheung retained the unilateral right to terminate; accordingly Tak Cheung's claims for understated profits, the Levy and profits from the New Engagement fail and judgment is entered for Tour Enterprise for the debit note sums with interest and costs on the term…
29 Jul 2011

YAP BEE HONG CHRISAND v. MACPI GROUP (H.K.) LTD

Citation

YAP BEE HONG CHRISAND v. MACPI GROUP (H.K.) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ605/2008

The settlement recorded at the Labour Department (12 March 2007) was a bona fide compromise and Macpi HK cannot recover part of that payment as a mistaken overpayment; clause 3 is construed to mean the US$500,000 threshold applies annually with payment frequency every six months, and because the proposed variation in January 2007 was not agreed the original contract terms govern; Macpi HK failed to prove misconduct, so defendant entitled to one month's wages in lieu and to commissions for 2007 calculated under original terms resulting in a net judgment in her favour.
14 Feb 2008

WONG SUI-KWAN v. CHEONG PUI FAN

Citation

WONG SUI-KWAN v. CHEONG PUI FAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV145/2007

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's factual findings rejecting the plaintiff's account of an oral Rider commission agreement and rejecting his claims regarding the firm name and passing off; the appeal was dismissed save that the order for taking of accounts was varied to clarify the temporal and file reference scope consistent with the judge's findings.
31 Oct 2007

SOURCE ONE LTD v. E.F. APPLIANCES CANADA LTD

Citation

SOURCE ONE LTD v. E.F. APPLIANCES CANADA LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ205/2007

The defendant demonstrated triable issues on (a) whether the plaintiff's alleged conduct amounted to repudiatory breaches justifying summary termination and (b) whether one-month notice was reasonable; accordingly summary judgment was inappropriate and the plaintiff's application was dismissed.
6 Dec 2006

YEUNG CHUNG HAY v. INTERNATIONAL PAINT LLC

Citation

YEUNG CHUNG HAY v. INTERNATIONAL PAINT LLC
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV115/2006

The Court held there was no genuine and serious cross-claim by the appellants sufficient to set aside the statutory demands: the parties had conducted business under the 1994 Distributor Agreement, no term to pay the asserted BFE commissions could be implied, delay in asserting the cross-claim undermined its credibility, and issues of mutuality/assignment did not need to be resolved because the cross-claim failed on its merits; therefore the refusal to set aside the statutory demands was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
15 Jun 2006

HUEN FOOK NAM v. PENTALPHA ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

HUEN FOOK NAM v. PENTALPHA ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15860/1999

Court accepted that parties implemented a revised commission regime effective 1 April 1998 (benchmark and reduced rates) and that VB Distributors commission was US$0.50 per piece; plaintiff was entitled only to commission for sales before 1 April 1998 (calculated accordingly) and the defendant's withholding of salary constituted a repudiatory breach/ statutory breach under the Employment Ordinance allowing the plaintiff to terminate under s10A and recover one month's wages in lieu plus unpaid salary, annual leave pay and expenses; counterclaim and severance claim dismissed.
18 Sept 2003

SIOW CHON HENG v. SIME INSURANCE BROKERS (HK) LTD

Citation

SIOW CHON HENG v. SIME INSURANCE BROKERS (HK) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3992/2001

Discovery of Class A and Class C documents was ordered because there was a prima facie case of their existence, they related directly to disputed issues (knowledge of relationships/appointment and quantum of commissions) and their discovery was necessary at least to save costs; discovery of Class B earlier employer returns was refused because returns already disclosed for 1996–2001 were sufficient and earlier returns would add nothing but costs.
18 Sept 2003

YIP KWOK FAI v. SIME INSURANCE BROKERS (HK) LTD

Citation

YIP KWOK FAI v. SIME INSURANCE BROKERS (HK) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5370/2001

There was prima facie evidence of the existence and relevance of Class A (approval records) and Class C (IRD submissions) documents and discovery of those classes was necessary (at least to save costs), therefore discovery of Class A and Class C documents was ordered; Class B employer returns prior to disclosed years were refused as they would add nothing material and would impose unnecessary costs.
6 Jun 2002

WONG KWOK SUN, ERNEST v. TONG YING YUNG, JAMES AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG KWOK SUN, ERNEST v. TONG YING YUNG, JAMES AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1564/2001

The Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings that the October agreement bound the company and shareholders, that the 1st and 2nd respondents diverted market allowances and altered commission terms to the complainants' prejudice, and that such conduct was unfairly prejudicial under s.168A; accordingly the relief ordering the 1st and 2nd respondents to purchase the petitioner's shares at a valuation as at the date of the order (on the footing the complained conduct had not occurred) was correct and the appeal was dismissed.