Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Allowances

  • 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.

  • 16 Apr 2010

    KWAN SIU WA BECKY v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

    Citation
    KWAN SIU WA BECKY v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2362/2009

    Leave to appeal was granted because the questions whether the specified allowances/commission are wages under ss 41(2) and 41C(2), whether the 'Days without Duties' provision can discharge statutory holiday obligations for an hourly paid employee, and whether contractual annual leave pay must be calculated the same as statutory annual leave pay involve points of law of general public importance.

  • 6 Nov 2009

    HO KIT MAN JENNY v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

    Citation
    HO KIT MAN JENNY v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCLA5/2009

    The Court held that LDA, GDA and DFSC are not part of 'daily wages' for the purposes of ss 41(2) and 41C(2) because they do not accrue and are not calculated on a daily basis; the Outport Allowance is a non-accountable pre-estimate to defray employment-related expenses and falls within exception (d) to the statutory definition of 'wages' and is excluded; the Tribunal's orders including those allowances were set aside and the claimants' cross-appeals on OA were dismissed; the finding that Ms Ho was hourly‑paid and had received no statutory holiday pay was reversed.

  • 6 Nov 2009

    KWAN SIU WA BECKY v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

    Citation
    KWAN SIU WA BECKY v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCLA3/2009

    LDA, GDA and DFSC do not accrue and are not calculated on a daily basis and therefore are not included in the calculation of statutory holiday pay or annual leave pay under ss.41(2) and 41C(2); Outport Allowance is a non‑accountable pre‑estimate to defray special expenses and is excluded from 'wages' by s.2(d); the Tribunal erred in finding Ms Ho was hourly‑paid with no statutory holiday pay and that finding is set aside.

  • 6 Nov 2009

    KWAN SIU WA BECKY v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

    Citation
    KWAN SIU WA BECKY v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCLA7/2009

    Allowances that do not accrue and are not calculated on a daily basis (LDA, GDA, DFSC) do not qualify as 'daily wages' under ss.41(2)/41C(2) and therefore are not included in statutory holiday pay or annual leave pay; the Outport Allowance is a genuine pre-estimate to defray special expenses and is excluded from 'wages' under s.2(d); Ms Ho is not hourly paid and the Tribunal's conclusion that she received no statutory holiday pay was erroneous and is set aside.

  • 6 Nov 2009

    WU YEE MEI VERA v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

    Citation
    WU YEE MEI VERA v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCLA8/2009

    Allowances that do not accrue and are not calculated on a daily basis (LDA, GDA, DFSC) do not constitute 'daily wages' under ss41(2)/41C(2) and therefore are excluded from statutory holiday and annual leave pay calculations; Outport Allowance is a non-accountable pre-estimate to defray special expenses and falls within exception (d) of s2 and is excluded from 'wages'; the Tribunal's finding that Ms Ho received no statutory holiday pay because she was 'hourly paid' was erroneous and is set aside.

  • 12 Jan 2009

    KWAN SIU WA BECKY v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED

    Citation
    KWAN SIU WA BECKY v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED
    Court
    Labour Tribunal
    Case number
    LBTC2827/2008

    OA is not 'wages' within s.2 of the Employment Ordinance because it is a sum to defray special expenses; LDA and GDA are components of wages and, because they are calculable on a daily/minute basis, must be included in ALP and SHP under the old ss.41(2) and 41C(2); DFSC is wages and, being calculable daily (flat 3.5% rate), must be included in Jenny's ALP and SHP; Jenny is hourly paid and has not received statutory holiday pay under the structure of her MGFP and Days Without Duties; questions of precise computation of working days and quantum are reserved for a subsequent mention hearing.

  • 30 Oct 1998

    SHAU LIN CHI v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

    Citation
    SHAU LIN CHI v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA7513/1994

    The court held that the plaintiff was required to remain in the vicinity of HIDC and be continuously available under orders, which constituted 'work' and overtime under CSR 665/667; CSR 669 did not apply because the plaintiff was not free to be at home or another fixed location, and therefore he was entitled to time off in lieu; declaration granted.

  • 10 Mar 1995

    NEW BRIGHT INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. WONG SAU CHI and Others

    Citation
    NEW BRIGHT INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. WONG SAU CHI and Others
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCLA66/1994

    Attendance bonus and transportation allowance were properly characterised as wages within the Employment Ordinance because they secured presence/readiness to perform work and were not genuine travelling expenses; overtime payments and overtime allowances were properly excluded because overtime was contractually defined and was not regular so excluded from statutory wage calculations; the over limit bonus was likely discretionary/gratuitous and not payable under contract and therefore excluded; awards must be recalculated using the statutory wage periods and formulas (s.31G(1)(b) for severance…

  • 15 Apr 1992

    YAN TAK CHEUNG v. FAMOUS HORSE GARMENT FACTORY LTD. AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    YAN TAK CHEUNG v. FAMOUS HORSE GARMENT FACTORY LTD. AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCLA3/1992

    Because the characterization of the China allowance as part of wages raised contested questions of mixed law and fact and might fall within statutory exceptions, the Presiding Officer erred in making a summary determination without hearing evidence; the appeal is allowed and the matter must be remitted for rehearing so facts can be determined and the legal characterization applied.