Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notice period

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2024

CHIU SUET MAN v. LIFE YOUNG MEDICAL GROUP LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS LIFE YOUNG AESTHETIC MEDICAL LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3728
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA5/2023

The Court held the tribunal's determination was a factual, highly fact-sensitive assessment of words and conduct over 15-17 February 2022; the tribunal's conclusion that the 15 February email was a resignation with the question of waiver pending the employer's reply, and that Chiu's 17 February email validly gave one month's notice (last day 14 March), was a reasonable factual finding and not open to intervention; consequently the employer's 17 February email demanding payment in lieu was wrongful and the appeals were dismissed.
31 Oct 2024

LI QING v. SFUND INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT FUND MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2629
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA5/2024

The Presiding Officer erred in law by adopting an incorrect factual test (focusing on whether the Claimant performed work after 3 March 2022) and by failing to investigate the realistic possibility of termination by mutual agreement; accordingly the appeal is allowed, the Trial Decision and Review Decision are set aside and the claim is remitted to the Labour Tribunal for retrial before another Presiding Officer; costs of the appeal are awarded to the Defendant to be summarily assessed.
17 Feb 2023

SALLEH ABU BAKER v. ANWAY LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCA 187
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV568/2021

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's findings that there was no proved oral agreement to vary the 3-month notice clause were reasonable and not plainly wrong; the appellant failed to discharge the high burden to displace the judge's credibility and factual findings, making it unnecessary to decide issues of estoppel or authority.
17 Nov 2021

SALLEH ABU BAKER v. ANWAY LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3407
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2359/2019

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff failed to prove an oral variation of the three‑month notice clause; the Plaintiff's own contemporaneous letter and admissions negated any concluded agreement, the alleged 18–24 month notice was commercially implausible and unsupported by documentary/electronic evidence, therefore the contractual three‑month notice remained effective and the Plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
7 Dec 2017

賴容對宏利人壽保險（國際）有限公司

Citation

賴容對宏利人壽保險（國際）有限公司
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3139/2016

The application for leave was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or other compelling reason under s63A(2); the matters relied on were already considered by the court and triable issues remain, so leave is refused and costs are awarded.
15 Dec 2016

CHUNG TIN SHUN CAESAR v. THE HONG KONG FOOTBALL ACADEMY LTD

Citation

CHUNG TIN SHUN CAESAR v. THE HONG KONG FOOTBALL ACADEMY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA26/2016

The claim was properly characterised as an action for damages for breach of the employment agreement; the Presiding Officer correctly applied contractual damages principles (including mitigation) in assessing loss using the applicant's own evidence; no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown, therefore leave to appeal was refused.
13 Nov 2012

TSE TIN SANG v. NG KWOK CHEUNG

Citation

TSE TIN SANG v. NG KWOK CHEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA17/2012

The appeal is allowed because the Adjudicator failed to consider and make findings on whether the defendant voluntarily waived the 7-day notice requirement when accepting the key; the omission was material to the outcome and requires the orders to be set aside and the matter remitted for retrial before another Adjudicator.
14 Apr 2011

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1510/2004

The court found the Amsterdam Note and the 12 March 1999 letter together formed the operative contractual terms: bonuses were payable by reference to actual billings using the prescribed percentages (no contractual minimum guaranteed annual bonus), HCL Technologies (Hong Kong) Limited was the sole employer, there was no contractually binding 1 year notice period and the appropriate notice in lieu was three months' salary; Mr Nadar did not incur personal liability under the alleged oral agreements; loans/advances received by plaintiff are to be credited against sums due.
14 Apr 2011

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA954/2005

The court found that the Amsterdam meeting produced binding terms which were formally recorded in the 12 March 1999 letter but did not include any guarantee of a minimum annual bonus of US$200,000 nor any one-year notice term; bonuses were contractual and payable only by reference to the Amsterdam/12 March formula based on actual billings; HCL Technologies (Hong Kong) Limited alone was the employer; plaintiff was entitled to specified bonus sums for FY1999-2002 and a assessed further bonus to Feb 2004, payment in lieu of 3 months' notice, and miscellaneous sums; Shiv Nadar was not personally…
20 Nov 2009

TRIJUMP LTD v. CHOI WAI KI

Citation

TRIJUMP LTD v. CHOI WAI KI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1898/2005

On the facts the court found a written employment contract existed with a 3 months notice provision and the defendant resigned without giving that notice; the defendant, without authority, signed and removed the Disputed Documents, breaching his fiduciary duties and causing the plaintiff to lose the contract prices; accordingly judgment is entered for plaintiff for balance wages in lieu and damages equal to the lost contract prices together with indemnity for related loss, interest and costs.