Court of Appeal judge Firuz Jaffril said the High Court had erred by treating the issue as one involving broader considerations such as natural justice and unequal bargaining power. The court also set aside the High Court’s order requiring Cuckoo to render accounts for passive income allegedly owed from March 2020 onwards. Firuz, who delivered the broad grounds, said the dispute over passive income was fundamentally contractual and should be determined solely by the terms of the contractor-agent agreements between the parties. Starmax and Wong later sued Cuckoo, seeking, among other things, the return of the settlement sum, unpaid commissions and passive income. He said the respondents could not rely on the agreements to claim commissions and passive income while simultaneously denying their validity and enforceability.