Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sign-on bonus

Legal area

Court

7 Mar 2025

GHAZI FAIDI v. QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 236
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV296/2023

The Court dismissed the defendants' appeal: the judge below was wrong to treat any suggestion that beneficial title had re-vested in the plaintiff as a basis for clause 2(d) summary judgment, but on construction clause 2(e)(iii) embraces third-party buyouts including voluntary agreed sales (not limited to tag-along/drag-along situations) and the evidence warranted inferring completion had occurred by the Notice date; there was no arguable defence to the claim under clause 2(e)(iii) and summary judgment for the plaintiff for US$750,000 was therefore upheld.
25 Aug 2023

GHAZI FAIDI v. QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2184
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA486/2018

The Court held that the Recorder’s dismissal of the Order 14A application was a procedural/technical refusal not reflecting the merits; the Deed of Termination did not extinguish the Plaintiff’s contractual entitlement to the sign-on bonus; the Notice validly elected cash under clause 2(d) or alternatively 2(e)(iii); Defendants failed to establish any real or bona fide defence and the Company’s US$250,000 counterclaim was frivolous/mistaken and an abuse of process; accordingly summary judgment for US$750,000 plus interest was entered and the US$250,000 counterclaim struck out.
25 Aug 2023

GHAZI FAIDI v. QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2184
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA272/2018

The prior Order 14A dismissal was procedural and did not decide the merits; on proper construction the Deed of Termination did not extinguish the Employment Agreement bonus rights, the Notice validly elected cash under clause 2(d) or 2(e)(iii) irrespective of legal title to the shares, and the Defendants have no arguable defence; summary judgment for US$750,000 plus interest is entered and the 1st Defendant's US$250,000 counterclaim is struck out as scandalous, frivolous and an abuse of process.
15 Jun 2022

GHAZI FAIDI v. QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1632
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA486/2018

The court refused the Order 14A application because, although the First Question was one of contract construction and could be determined, the Court did not have all necessary undisputed facts to decide the Second and Third Questions (in particular whether "completion" of the Third-Party Buyout had occurred as defined in the SPA). Because the Second and Third Questions raised factual issues essential to the plaintiff's entitlement to payment, the court exercised its residual discretion not to determine any of the questions under O.14A and dismissed the application.

Hong Kong Case Law

GHAZI FAIDI v. QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD AND OTHERS

GHAZI FAIDI v. QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD

GHAZI FAIDI v. QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD AND OTHERS

GHAZI FAIDI v. QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD