Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deed of termination

Legal area

Court

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 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1632
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA272/2018

The Order 14A application was dismissed because the court did not have all necessary facts to determine whether the Notice fell within Schedule 2 clauses 2(d) or 2(e)(iii) (principally whether "completion" of the Third-Party Buyout had occurred); for that reason the court declined in its discretion to determine the related construction question on the Deed of Termination and refused summary determination of the preliminary questions.
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.
19 Jan 2016

TANG CHUNG WAH aka TANG CHUNG WAH, ALAN AND ANOTHER v. JONATHAN RUSSELL LEONG AND OTHERS

Citation

TANG CHUNG WAH aka TANG CHUNG WAH, ALAN AND ANOTHER v. JONATHAN RUSSELL LEONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1691/2011

Defendants' decision to settle and to instruct lawyers not to pursue counterclaims was a bona fide commercial decision within their authority as majority partners and not a breach of fiduciary duty; limited breaches of clause 7.2 occurred by D1, D4 and D7 in timing (and D1 in completeness) for which nominal damages were appropriate; clause 7.1 may require reasonable securities and plaintiffs failed to provide acceptable indemnity; Settlement Deed is binding on all partners; accounting for WIP and receivables and other specified relief to proceed by account.

Hong Kong Case Law

GHAZI FAIDI v. QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD AND OTHERS

GHAZI FAIDI v. QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD AND OTHERS

GHAZI FAIDI v. QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD

TANG CHUNG WAH aka TANG CHUNG WAH, ALAN AND ANOTHER v. JONATHAN RUSSELL LEONG AND OTHERS