|
HCLA000061/1996
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
LABOUR TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO. 61 OF 1996
____________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
CHAN SHU TING |
Applicant |
|
|
|
|
AND |
|
|
|
|
|
KONG SENG PAGING LIMITED |
Respondent |
____________
Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Keith in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 31 May 1996
Date of Delivery of Judgment: 31 May 1996
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
1. The Labour Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the sum of $88,560.00 as unpaid commission. The Applicant wishes to appeal against that award on the basis that the amount of unpaid commission should have been found to be $103,680.00. The reasons for the decision of the Presiding Officer show that the difference between the amount claimed and the amount awarded was because the Presiding Officer excluded a claim for override commission. As I read the reasons, the basis for that was that the Presiding Officer found as a fact that override commission would only be payable if certain sales targets were achieved, and they had not been. On that reading of the reasons, the finding by the Presiding Officer that the amount of unpaid commission was only $88,560.00 was a finding of fact. Since an appeal from a decision of the Labour Tribunal lies only on questions of law, it follows that leave to appeal cannot be granted on this ground.
2. Three other grounds of appeal are relied on by the Applicant:
(i) He complains that he was not awarded interest on the sum awarded. Interest for any period prior to an award is discretionary. Having read the Presiding Officer's reasons for declining to award interest in this case, I cannot say that the exercise of his discretion was so perverse as to be capable of amounting to an error of law.
(ii) The Applicant criticises the Presiding Officer for not punishing the Respondent for failing to pay the commission due. But the Labour Tribunal only has power to compensate applicants for losses incurred: it has no power to award additional sums by way of punishment.
(iii) The Applicant complains that the Presiding Officer failed to award him expenses of $50.00 for the attendance of two witnesses. It is true that the award makes no reference to this claim, but the Applicant was awarded $2,000.00 expenses, and I think I can assume that that sum included the witness expenses which the Applicant claimed. Certainly the Applicant has not attended court today to argue otherwise.
3. For these reasons, this application for leave to appeal must be refused.
(Brian Keith)
Judge of the High Court
Representation:
No appearances
|