Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Performance bonus

Legal area

Court

24 Dec 2014

TADJUDIN SUNNY v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Citation

TADJUDIN SUNNY v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA322/2008

The court implied an anti-avoidance term into the plaintiff's employment contract (preventing termination by notice/payment in lieu to avoid eligibility for the performance incentive), found the PIP and termination in August 2007 were conducted in bad faith such that one dominant purpose was to avoid the 2007 bonus, dismissed the 2005 and 2006 irrationality claims, and awarded damages for the lost 2007 bonus (HK$3,900,000).
19 Oct 2010

TADJUDIN SUNNY v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Citation

TADJUDIN SUNNY v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV173/2009

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions raised were fact-sensitive and dependent on the factual matrix (not pure points of law); determining the issues would require detailed factual inquiry into the nature of the bonus and the employer's compensation and evaluation system, and therefore were not appropriate to be certified as questions of general importance for the Court of Final Appeal.
4 Oct 2006

LIANG CURRENT TIEN TZU v. HUTCHISON GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

LIANG CURRENT TIEN TZU v. HUTCHISON GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15/2003

Clause 7 was construed to apply only to funds raised from the date of commencement to the financial year ending 31 March 2001 and therefore did not apply to funds raised thereafter; the performance bonus scheme was reviewed/revised in or about 1 April 2001 as evidenced by the contemporaneous Ma memo, so the plaintiff had no contractual entitlement under the original Clause 7 to bonuses for the HIL transaction; the HK$409,395 payment was accepted as partial and did not constitute full settlement; the defendant's counterclaim to recoup the sum fails and is dismissed.
22 Sept 2005

CHOW JIH YIM WILSON v. GLOBAL REGENCY ELECTRONICS LTD

Citation

CHOW JIH YIM WILSON v. GLOBAL REGENCY ELECTRONICS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA21/2005

The Court held that the correct implied term required the performance bonus to be calculated by reference to the net profits of the company ascertained up to the date of termination of employment (31 March 2003); the Labour Tribunal erred in finding the claimant had not discharged the burden of proof and in holding the bonus should be based on year‑end pro‑ration. Judgment entered for claimant in the sum of $578,065 with interest and costs.

Hong Kong Case Law

TADJUDIN SUNNY v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

TADJUDIN SUNNY v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

LIANG CURRENT TIEN TZU v. HUTCHISON GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS LTD

CHOW JIH YIM WILSON v. GLOBAL REGENCY ELECTRONICS LTD