Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discretionary bonus

Legal area

Court

29 Mar 2022

TUNG WOON HING CANDICE AND OTHERS v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 826
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA18/2019

The Presiding Officer correctly applied the law on estoppel by convention and on the evidence there was no clear and unequivocal common assumption that retirees would be entitled to the 2017 ex-gratia payment; the distinction between year-end bonus and targeted 2017 ex-gratia payment, together with discretionary guidelines and disclaimers, supported the factual finding of no common assumption and the appeal is dismissed.
26 Apr 2021

COSME DE NET CO LTD v. LAM KIN MING

Citation

[2021] HKDC 445
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5371/2019

On the facts the defendant actively participated in and materially assisted a competing online business, had access to and used the plaintiff’s proprietary product images and descriptions, breached express contractual duties and fiduciary duties, and those facts justified summary dismissal; accordingly plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief and costs while the defendant’s counterclaim for wrongful dismissal failed.
31 Aug 2020

許達忠對 NIPPON KAIJI KYOKAI t/a NIPPON KAIJI KYOKAI HONG KONG-BRANCH

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2216
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA7/2020

The court refused leave because the applicant advanced no arguable point of law nor showed the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction; the applicant's complaints amounted to factual disagreement with the Tribunal's findings, which does not satisfy section 32, therefore leave was refused.
21 Nov 2019

BU XIAONAN v. ORACLE SYSTEMS HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2828
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA7/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because no arguable point of law was identified: the Deputy Presiding Officer made factual credibility findings preferring employer witnesses, the relevant written compensation documents expressly conferred managerial discretion over bonuses (displacing s11AA presumption), and there was no legal error or jurisdictional defect to justify interference.
28 Oct 2008

SUNNY TADJUDIN v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Citation

SUNNY TADJUDIN v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA322/2008

The Court struck out the pleaded implied terms and the discrimination pleading because (1) the alleged discriminatory acts fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Court under the SDO and therefore the Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction to hear that part, and (2) an implied term cannot be used to contradict the Contract's express and unrestricted power to terminate without cause, so the pleaded anti-avoidance and bonus-related implied duties are not legally sustainable; accordingly Paragraphs 5(1)–5(4) were struck out and the claim dismissed.
11 Mar 2002

WONG HUEY LAN v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE (HK) LTD.

Citation

WONG HUEY LAN v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE (HK) LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA77/2001

The LEIP payment was a contractual, formulaic end-of-year payment within section 11A because the employer\u2019s discretion was fettered by identifiable objective criteria (operating targets, appraisal ratings, and limited grounds for withdrawal) and therefore not "payable only at the discretion of the employer"; improper exercises of that discretion are reviewable, so statutory pro rata entitlement under s11F and non-excludability under s70 apply, entitling the claimant to the awarded sum.
29 May 2001

POST VANESSA JANE v. NOMURA INTERNATIONAL (HONG KONG) LTD.

Citation

POST VANESSA JANE v. NOMURA INTERNATIONAL (HONG KONG) LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7259/1997

The Staff Handbook was incorporated into the plaintiff's contract making bonus entitlement discretionary absent a formal individually agreed plan; the plaintiff failed to prove any binding collateral or subsequent agreement to a formula-based bonus and the defendant's decision not to award a bonus was not irrational given the company’s negative results and the team’s assessed loss (including indirect and market-making costs and a 15-month bonus period); accordingly the plaintiff's contractual and alternative discretionary claims fail.
9 Nov 2000

HO JUAN HEE, EDWARD AND ANOTHER v. PICO EXHIBITS (H.K.) LTD.

Citation

HO JUAN HEE, EDWARD AND ANOTHER v. PICO EXHIBITS (H.K.) LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA470/1997

The court found that 4H was the contracting employee and that clause 8 of the Terms and Conditions conferred a discretionary right on Pico Exhibits to withhold profit sharing; accordingly the plaintiffs were not entitled as of right to the claimed profit shares and the claim was dismissed.