Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bonus entitlement

Legal area

Court

18 Oct 2024

ANTHONY MACKAY v. CHI-X ASIA PACIFIC HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2901
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA776/2021

On the balance of probabilities the court found employment commenced 1 March 2016 (so plaintiff is entitled to March salary, interest and the ORSO contribution for that month) but rejected the existence of an oral guaranteed US$500,000 first-year bonus and rejected that the LTIP entitlement had been accepted and vested because contemporaneous documents and conduct showed continued negotiation and absence of signature; the MPF claim failed for lack of evidence of actual financial loss; clause 9.3 precluding payment in lieu of annual leave was valid; the board’s refusal to award any bonus was n…
5 May 2023

KAN KIN TONG v. MAN LEONG FIRE SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 513
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3973/2021

The bonus scheme, despite discretionary wording, was a formulaic share-of-profit remuneration (part of wages) and payable as contractual entitlement; the appropriate time reference for receipts is up to 17 May 2018; after allowing agreed and reasonable post-departure expense deductions ($931,340 and $95,963 for specified CB/ST items) the plaintiff was entitled to 50% of net profit giving a bonus of HKD 1,213,105; plaintiff also entitled to refunds for wrongful car and tax deductions totaling HKD 232,431; MPF offset claim was rejected; striking out application dismissed; costs ordered for plai…
28 Oct 2021

楊立孚對香港賽馬會

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3117
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA10/2021

Permission to appeal was refused because none of the statutory grounds in s32 were made out: the Tribunal's factual findings were open on the evidence and not affected by an error of law, and s35(2) bars re‑hearing factual issues or admitting fresh evidence on a leave application.
30 Jun 2020

KWAN YIU HUNG v. AIA INTERNATIONAL LTD (Formerly known as American International Assurance Company (Bermuda) Limited

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1389
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2407/2014

Clause 26(a) refers to production requirements set by the Company (AIA) not variable district targets; Clause 26 is not an automatic self-executing termination mechanism absent the Company's exercise of its right; AIA validly terminated the Agreement under Clause 24(b) by notice dated 5 January 2011 effective 20 January 2011; therefore the plaintiff's claim that termination occurred automatically on 30 November 2010 and that he is entitled to post-termination production bonuses fails.
23 Oct 2019

XU DAZHONG v. NIPPON KAIJI KYOKAI t/a NIPPON KAIJI KYOKAI HONG KONG BRANCH

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2588
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA15/2018

The Tribunal's finding that the Subject Payments included EOY Payments was set aside because the Presiding Officer failed to give adequate reasons for that conclusion, relied improperly on the Defendant's witness without reconciling inconsistent earlier statements, and thus the question of the nature of the Subject Payments must be remitted to the Tribunal for retrial to be determined objectively in accordance with established principles of contractual interpretation and evidence.
27 Mar 2019

鄺麗梅對 INTERBUILD HOLDING LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 763
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA3/2018

Leave to appeal was granted because the question whether the contractual clause excluding bonus on termination for cause is void as being contrary to ss11B, 11F and/or 70 of the Employment Ordinance is a bona fide arguable point of law warranting appellate consideration.
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. 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.
31 Jul 2017

HON FOO CHOI v. HOMETEK INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

HON FOO CHOI v. HOMETEK INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3129/2014

The written employment contract incorporated a fixed bonus entitlement and expense reimbursement; defendant's assertion of an inconsistent antecedent oral discretionary bonus agreement was not proved and its primary witness was found unreliable; defendant failed to prove ownership of the alleged assets via the pleaded Xingyu Agreement or that plaintiff misappropriated them; plaintiff was entitled to outstanding bonus and expenses; plaintiff was liable for one month's pay in lieu of notice because the fixed-term contract became a continuous contract by conduct after expiry; net judgment awarde…
11 Jul 2014

CHAN CHI LING ELWYN v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD

Citation

CHAN CHI LING ELWYN v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA9/2013

The appeal is allowed because the Deputy Presiding Officer failed to give adequate consideration and investigation to material and relevant evidence bearing on whether the parties intended the written contract to be the complete agreement and whether an oral project bonus term existed; the failure to sufficiently evaluate contemporaneous documents, reasons for delay in executing written contracts, tax/listing context of bonus payments and inconsistencies raised a legal error under the Tribunal's duty to investigate and justify interference; the proper remedy is to remit the matter to the Labo…