Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Definition of wages

Legal area

Court

17 Jan 2019

QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD v. DIMITRI PHILIPPIDES

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 143
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA752/2018

The court held that the central legal questions (whether the quarterly payments are "wages" for s7 purposes and whether defendants breached s7) cannot be resolved in isolation because their determination depends on disputed factual matters about how the payments were calculated and treated in practice; those triable factual issues preclude summary determination and summary judgment, and therefore the summons was dismissed.
17 Jan 2019

QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD v. NANAKO YABE

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 143
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA757/2018

The application was dismissed because the critical question whether the quarterly payments are 'wages' depends on disputed factual matters about how the Bonus Pool and payments were calculated and treated in practice; those factual disputes cannot be resolved on the affidavits and submissions under summary procedures, so the Questions could not be decided summarily and summary judgment was inappropriate.
17 Jan 2019

QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD v. VITIELLO THOMAS XAVIER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 143
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA755/2018

The summons for summary determination was dismissed because the central question—whether the quarterly payments are "wages"—depends on disputed factual matters (how the bonus pool and payments were calculated, adjustments made, parties' practices and representations) which require trial evidence and cross-examination; therefore summary judgment was inappropriate.
17 Jan 2019

QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD v. PASCAL VALANSOT

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 143
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA756/2018

The questions whether the quarterly payments constitute "wages" under the Ordinance could not be determined summarily because their characterization depends on disputed factual matters (how the Bonus Pool was calculated and applied, whether payments were in substance commissions or discretionary bonuses, and how parties treated them) and on contractual construction in context; therefore the summons for summary determination and summary judgment was dismissed.
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.
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.
22 Dec 2010

ICAP (HONG KONG) LTD v. KWOK CHI LEUNG

Citation

ICAP (HONG KONG) LTD v. KWOK CHI LEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA637/2007

Bonuses under the February 2005 revised contracts were contractual in nature (the word "discretionary" had been omitted and the bonus pool and distribution mechanism carried contractual content) but, construing the Ordinance in context, such bonuses are excluded from the meaning of "wages" for the purposes of s.7(2); alternatively, even if characterised as wages, the bonuses would have been wages that might have accrued rather than wages which would have accrued during the unserved notice period, so they are not recoverable under s.7(2). Consequently the plaintiff's statutory claims fail.
22 Dec 2010

ICAP (HONG KONG) LTD v. ELAINE CHAN

Citation

ICAP (HONG KONG) LTD v. ELAINE CHAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA636/2007

Bonuses under the 3 February 2005 revised contracts are not 'wages' within the meaning of s.2 in the relevant context and, even if they were, any bonus during the unserved notice period would have been a contingent sum that 'might have accrued' rather than sums which 'would have accrued' for the purposes of s.7(2); accordingly the plaintiff's statutory claims fail.
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.