Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Commissions

  • 30 Oct 2015

    MO KWOK KEI v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD

    Citation
    MO KWOK KEI v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCLA30/2015

    Leave to appeal granted because the appellant demonstrated arguable errors of law on the commission set-off point (interpretation/application of ss35(4),41(6),41C(6)) and an arguable failure by the Presiding Officer to investigate the factual/legal effect of claimants' alleged acceptance of the Replacement Arrangement, such failures could give rise to injustice making an appeal appropriate.

  • 30 Oct 2015

    TSANG MEI SHEUNG MEIZ v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD

    Citation
    TSANG MEI SHEUNG MEIZ v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCLA29/2015

    Leave to appeal was granted because it was arguable that the Presiding Officer erred in law or failed to give proper regard to the Relevant Statutory Provisions regarding deduction of commissions from statutory entitlements, and it was arguable that the Presiding Officer failed to investigate claimant conduct concerning the Replacement Arrangement such that a fair determination could not be achieved; consequently leave to appeal should be permitted to ventilate these legal issues at full hearing.

  • 7 Jun 2012

    JOYCE T. ONGSIP t/a LT ENTERPRISES CO v. PIMATRONICS LTD

    Citation
    JOYCE T. ONGSIP t/a LT ENTERPRISES CO v. PIMATRONICS LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA611/2010

    The summons for specific discovery was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the requested documents were relevant and necessary rather than a fishing expedition; conspiracy was not properly pleaded so discovery to support speculative inferences was impermissible; alleged payments to a third party did not, on pleaded facts, render the agreement illegal; the plaintiff's affirmations and disclosed print‑outs were adequate for Order 24 purposes.

  • 8 Oct 2008

    LAM PIK SHAN v. HONG KONG WING ON TRAVEL SERVICE LTD

    Citation
    LAM PIK SHAN v. HONG KONG WING ON TRAVEL SERVICE LTD
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV394/2007

    Leave to appeal was refused because this was not a test case under s22(1)(a) (no binding order/agreement and the amount in issue for the 15th Claimant did not exceed HK$1,000,000), the matter was not of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) being a straightforward statutory interpretation of the amended Ordinance, and there were no grounds to exercise the residual discretion.