Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Separation agreement

Legal area

Court

14 Nov 2019

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. POON CHO-MING, JOHN

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 38
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV1/2019

Applying the Fuchs analysis and the statutory language of the Inland Revenue Ordinance, both Sum D and the Share Option Gain were not chargeable to salaries tax because they were given as part of a settlement to induce the taxpayer to desist from litigation and to leave (i.e. to make him 'go away quietly'), not as rewards for past, present or future employment services; acceleration of vesting was part of that settlement and did not convert the benefits into taxable remuneration.
1 Jun 2018

POON CHO-MING, JOHN v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2018] HKCA 297
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV94/2016

Applying the Fuchs purpose test to the facts found by the Board of Review, the Court held that Sum D and the accelerated vesting that produced the Share Option Gain were not payments made as a reward for employment or pursuant to an accrued entitlement under the Service Agreement or option grants but were consideration to secure the taxpayer's agreement to resign, give covenants and avoid litigation; accordingly they were not income 'from' employment and not chargeable to salaries tax.
14 Feb 2018

JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU v. SAIF PARTNERS II L.P.AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 357
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL16/2016

Clause 8 of the SA fixed plaintiff's final vested carried interest at 51.78% and prevented reduction; ALPA proviso (iv) requires a causal link so that ‘Termination with Cause’ means an involuntary termination for Cause and does not apply to consensual termination later followed by discovery of Cause; ‘policy’ in ALPA refers to an express written policy; non-disparagement clause targets reputational harm not ordinary operational or financial conduct; plaintiff breached fiduciary duties in relation to the Xinrui/Keygate dealings and must disgorge profit from that investment; other allegations o…
10 Jul 2017

WSM v. YKY

Citation

WSM v. YKY
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8306/2015

On the balance of probabilities the husband failed to prove that the parties lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately before presentation of the petition; the separation agreement, if signed, was more probably executed for tax avoidance to enable the husband to become non-resident of Canada rather than to effect a genuine clean break; extensive evidence of cohabitation, financial interdependence, joint accounts, shared travel and public representation as spouses showed no legal separation (or, if separation occurred, there was resumption of cohabitation), therefor…
27 Jul 2016

LEO INNOTECH (HOLDING) LTD v. LEE SHUNG CHI

Citation

LEO INNOTECH (HOLDING) LTD v. LEE SHUNG CHI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA474/2015

The defendant’s allegations were inherently implausible, unsupported by contemporaneous documents and did not disclose a real prospect of defence; breach of s.47A Cap 32 did not prevent recovery of the loan; therefore summary judgment was properly entered and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Jul 2015

CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG v. HANS RICHARD MAHNCKE

Citation

CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG v. HANS RICHARD MAHNCKE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA935/2014

Because the Statement of Claim pleaded a viable case and established the need for declaratory relief, the application under O.19 r.7 was sufficient; the separation agreement, the deed poll and the statements specified are valid and binding on the defendant, and equitable injunctive relief was warranted to restrain disparaging statements and pursuit of released claims; the Order 14 summons was unnecessary and should not have been issued.
31 Oct 2014

JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU v. SAIF PARTNERS II L P AND ANOTHERS

Citation

JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU v. SAIF PARTNERS II L P AND ANOTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1551/2010

The court granted the plaintiff's summons for specific discovery in part and refused it in part: ordered tailored categories of documents with defined temporal limits for paragraphs 1,2,4,5-6,7,8 and 9 of the Schedule; refused discovery under paragraph 3; directed parties to agree a draft order to extend time for exchange of witness statements within 14 days; ordered costs nisi in favour of the plaintiff.
23 Dec 2010

CHAN KIN HUNG v. LAW KIN MAN

Citation

CHAN KIN HUNG v. LAW KIN MAN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6082/2006

Judge found plaintiff failed to prove payment was made under duress; accepted 1st Defendant's account that the parties reached a September Agreement whereby the plaintiff offered to pay HK$700,000 in exchange for the 1st Defendant abandoning an arguable beneficial interest and vacating the property, constituting valid consideration; 2nd Defendant was an innocent agent who received and passed on the funds and is not liable; accordingly claims dismissed and costs awarded to defendants.
19 Nov 2009

MRS. MURAD AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

MRS. MURAD AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA1/2009

The taxed sums were paid pursuant to assured entitlements in the service agreement (and acknowledged in the separation agreement), not as consideration for surrender or damages; therefore they were emoluments arising from employment and assessable under s.8/ s.9 Cap.112.
18 May 1979

KWAN BUI LOCK v. ISABELLE STAMM LOCK

Citation

KWAN BUI LOCK v. ISABELLE STAMM LOCK
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP106/1979

Leave was granted because medical evidence established that the applicant would continue to suffer significant deterioration in health attributable to the marriage, there was no reasonable prospect of reconciliation, and those facts together constituted exceptional hardship justifying exercise of the court's discretion under Section 12(2).