Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Holiday pay

Legal area

Court

8 Apr 2019

TSANG MEI SHEUNG MEIZ v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 358
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1632/2017

On the agreed facts the commission and team leader bonus were paid monthly, were payable for each day of the month regardless of attendance, and therefore constitute sums paid for statutory entitlements within the 'any other reason' limb of sections 35(4), 41(6) and 41C(6) of the Employment Ordinance; such sums must be deducted when calculating statutory entitlements, resulting in no shortfall and dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.
23 Jun 2016

MAK WAI MAN v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD

Citation

MAK WAI MAN v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA28/2015

Allowed appeal on issue of whether commissions/team leader bonus could be deducted under ss 35(4), 41(6) and 41C(6): Presiding Officer erred by failing to consider legislative intent and whether commissions might be treated as payments in respect of paid leave (including implied terms/other agreements); matter remitted to Labour Tribunal to determine whether commissions and team leader bonus reduce statutory entitlements. Dismissed appeal on Replacement Arrangement: Presiding Officer’s finding that arrangement was unilateral and not accepted or estopped was supported by evidence and will stan…
30 Oct 2015

FUNG PUI WAH SALLY v. RICHFIELD REALTY LITD

Citation

FUNG PUI WAH SALLY v. RICHFIELD REALTY LITD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA31/2015

Leave to appeal was granted because it was arguable the Presiding Officer erred in law in his treatment of commissions under the Relevant Statutory Provisions and failed to investigate adequately whether the Claimants had accepted or acquiesced to the Replacement Arrangement, such failures meeting the threshold for leave from the Labour Tribunal.
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

MAK WAI MAN v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD

Citation

MAK WAI MAN v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA28/2015

The court found there were arguable errors of law and arguable failures of investigation by the Labour Tribunal: it is arguable the Tribunal did not properly consider the Relevant Statutory Provisions and legislative intent in concluding commissions could not reduce statutory entitlements, and it is arguable the Tribunal failed to investigate whether claimants had accepted the Replacement Arrangement, such failure could give rise to injustice; accordingly leave to appeal should be granted.
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.
15 Nov 2012

DIVAKARA MOHATTALALAGE NISHAN L P v. WONG YEE

Citation

DIVAKARA MOHATTALALAGE NISHAN L P v. WONG YEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA15/2012

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant's complaints attacked findings of fact rather than raising errors of law; the Tribunal's factual findings that the monthly wage was HK$8,500 (including the allowance), that no valid oral probation existed, and that two weeks of no‑pay leave were wrongfully imposed are supported by the evidence and entitled to deference, and the order for a replacement ticket and food allowance was reasonable in context.
26 Sept 2012

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD v. KWAN SIU WA BECKY AND OTHERS

Citation

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD v. KWAN SIU WA BECKY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV5/2012

LDA, GDA and DFSC fall within the statutory meaning of 'wages' and, because respondents' pay varied, ss41(2) and 41C(2) require averaging those components over the relevant wage period to compute statutory holiday and annual leave pay; contractual terms govern excess annual leave—Kwan and Wu are entitled to the statutory rate for excess leave; Ho is not entitled to additional payment for excess leave because her contract provided payment via MGFP/leave credits; the Court of Appeal remitter on overtime is set aside.
19 Apr 2011

KWAN SIU WA BECKY v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

Citation

KWAN SIU WA BECKY v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV92/2010

The Court restored the Labour Tribunal's decision on the substantive allowances and holiday pay issues and exercised its discretion on costs, concluding that a 60% costs award to the appellants for the appeal and the proceedings below was fair; the respondent's application to vary the order nisi was refused and the costs order nisi was made absolute.
17 Mar 2011

KWAN SIU WA BECKY v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

Citation

KWAN SIU WA BECKY v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV92/2010

LDA and GDA are wages for purposes of ss.41 and 41C because they accrue and are calculable on a daily basis; DFSC is also includible because commissions are earned when sales occur and are includible if they fall within the relevant wage period; Outport Allowance is excluded under s.2(d) as a sum payable to defray special expenses of employment; Ms Ho's claim as to inclusion of overtime in holiday pay requires remittal to the tribunal to determine whether the statutory overtime condition is satisfied for relevant wage periods.