27 Mar 2019
Leave to appeal was granted because the question whether the contractual clause excluding bonus on termination for cause is void as being contrary to ss11B, 11F and/or 70 of the Employment Ordinance is a bona fide arguable point of law warranting appellate consideration.
14 Feb 2018
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…
29 Sept 2017
The court found the defendants had grounds that could have justified summary dismissal for the plaintiff's grave and persistent teaching failures, but the defendants elected to terminate by payment in lieu of notice and thereby waived the right to rely on summary dismissal; further, termination under clause 56(g) was not lawful because Appendix 17 procedures (formal warnings and notice) were not followed; accordingly the plaintiff was wrongfully terminated and damages were assessed at HKD 354,081.80.
21 Nov 2007
Defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that the Plaintiff induced the seven agents to leave; the Plaintiff's credible evidence and plausible non‑inducement explanations (standard resignation letter practice, low branch morale, prior earlier resignation, and recruitment approach by AIA) made alternative inferences more probable; no adverse inference was drawn for failure to call the agents. Judgment entered for Plaintiff, termination declared wrongful, and inquiry ordered to quantify outstanding commission and remuneration.
25 Oct 2004
Because the defendant adduced admissible evidence raising genuine disputes of fact as to breaches of the Agreement and relied on uncontradicted expert evidence on Delaware law that would, if proven, negate plaintiff's entitlement to payment, summary judgment was inappropriate; therefore the Master’s summary judgment was set aside and the defendant granted unconditional leave to defend; on security for costs the court exercised its discretion not to order security because the counterclaim raised essentially the same issues making security unjust.