Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Termination agreement

Legal area

Court

16 Mar 2022

HEATH BRIAN ZARIN v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 412
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV75/2020

The Court of Appeal held that on the facts the releases of the 2012 restricted shares (Sums B2 and C) and the payment for assistance (Sum D) derived from a fresh bargain in the Termination Agreement with fresh consideration for post-termination obligations; the dominant purpose and substance of the payments was not to reward past or ongoing employment and therefore they were not income "from" employment under section 8(1) of the IRO, so the CIR's appeals were dismissed.
29 Jun 2021

HEATH BRIAN ZARIN v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1846
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA4/2019

On the facts and applying the statutory test, the Court held that Sums B2 and C were not 'from' the appellant's employment because the operative purpose of releasing the shares was to procure the appellant's potentially long-term post‑employment assistance in litigation (fresh consideration under the Termination Agreement) rather than a reward for past, present or future services as an employee.
20 Jan 2021

FEISHANG NON METAL MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED ( now known as “HANGKAN GROUP LIMITED” v. TONG CHUNG MING t/a KAI MUK CO.

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 117
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1767/2018

Court found the 4 January 2018 letter and the March receipts were not genuine or did not prove repayment; accepted that HK$500,000 was paid in January 2018 as interim repayment; held the Termination Agreement dated 16 March 2018 was valid and that the defendant failed to pay the balance of HK$8,530,000; entered judgment for the plaintiff for HK$8,530,000 with interest and costs.
11 Mar 2020

HEATH BRIAN ZARIN v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2020] HKCA 147
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP4/2020

Leave to appeal was granted because it is reasonably arguable that Sums B2 and C were released in substance in consideration for the taxpayer’s undertaking to provide future assistance under the Termination Agreement, making the Termination Agreement a plausible source of the payments rather than the prior employment, thereby raising a properly arguable question of law.
25 Apr 2014

LAM SHU PUI AND ANOTHER v. SZETO KAM FAI AND OTHERS

Citation

LAM SHU PUI AND ANOTHER v. SZETO KAM FAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1910/2011

Plaintiff's claim dismissed because he failed on the balance of probabilities to prove that the identified payments were capital injections or debts of PGL for which defendants were liable; the accounting evidence was incomplete and inconsistent and the only proved extent of defendants' liability was the sum they had agreed to bear (HK$1.4M).
8 Jun 2012

MOORES ROWLAND (A Firm) AND ANOTHER v. GRANT THORNTON (A Firm) AND OTHERS

Citation

MOORES ROWLAND (A Firm) AND ANOTHER v. GRANT THORNTON (A Firm) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1126/2010

The court held the perfected consent orders could not be set aside in these interlocutory summonses because the court is functus officio once consent orders are perfected and the proper remedy is a fresh action to impeach such orders; even if some limited jurisdiction existed to set aside a nullity, the applicants had not established that Hart Giles lacked authority or that the orders were nullities and, in any event, the internal partnership dispute must be finally determined first; alternatively, granting the relief would unjustifiably frustrate the Settlement Deed and expose partners and t…
15 Aug 2006

ROYCE EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES LTD v. COUNTER WIN INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

ROYCE EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES LTD v. COUNTER WIN INVESTMENT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3111/2005

Because three of the four alleged clauses of the Second Oral Agreement are contained in the written Termination Agreement and there is no credible contemporaneous evidence for the additional alleged reimbursement term, the alleged Second Oral Agreement was collateral and not independently proved; the defendant's counterclaim was not credible and did not raise a triable issue, entitling the plaintiff to summary judgment for HK$257,800 plus interest and costs.
15 Mar 2006

UNION BEST ENGINEERING LTD v. CHING NGAR ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

UNION BEST ENGINEERING LTD v. CHING NGAR ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV88/2005

The trial judge accepted the plaintiff's evidence that a post-dated cheque was converted to a cash cheque in return for an oral personal guarantee by the 2nd Defendant that the 1st Defendant would perform the termination agreement; the Court of Appeal found no basis to disturb that factual conclusion because it was not plainly wrong and dismissed the appeal.
17 Sept 2004

UNION BEST ENGINEERING LTD v. CHING NGAR ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

UNION BEST ENGINEERING LTD v. CHING NGAR ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6376/2003

The judge accepted the Plaintiff's account that the 2nd Defendant requested and received a cash cheque and, under pressure and after telephone consultation with his partner, orally guaranteed that the 1st Defendant would perform the termination agreement; contemporaneous alteration of the agreement's signature page and surrounding conduct supported inferring an oral guarantee; accordingly the 2nd Defendant is bound as guarantor and the court granted a conditional indemnity declaration for the Labour Tribunal award upon proof of payment and an order nisi for costs.
3 Apr 2003

CHAN HO WAN RICKY t/a HO WAN ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION CO v. WONG CHUN KEUNG t/a C.K. ENGINEERING CO

Citation

CHAN HO WAN RICKY t/a HO WAN ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION CO v. WONG CHUN KEUNG t/a C.K. ENGINEERING CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA469/2002

The court rejected the existence of the alleged oral agreement on the facts due to inconsistencies in testimony, the drafting history of the written contract, absence of required documentary proof and the conditional nature of the alleged obligation tied to third‑party accounts; the written contract recording $24 per m3 was held to be the final price and the plaintiff's claim for HK$711,000 was dismissed.