With respect, these are illusory answers. They can only serve to expose the fragility of the case. I see no right to sue Taxpayer’s for wrongful dismissal when the entitlement to terminate the Company’s Service Agreement with 6 is not disputed. The months’ notice resignation from all the directorships of the subsidiaries was Company’s provided for in the Service Agreement the Taxpayer was obliged to – resign from such directorships upon termination of his employment with the Company (Decision, paras 42 to 44). I should add that this court has been read many of the provisions in the Separation Agreement. However, I am unable to see how they affect the true nature of Sum D (and the Share Option Gain). Mr Wong was at pains to point out that where, as here, the employer had a right to terminate the employment contract, the termination of contract pursuant to such right cannot give rise to an abrogation of the rights (assuming that the entitlements upon employee’s employee’s termination, eg, payment in lieu of notice, have been met). Mr Wong relied upon para 19 of (see para 17 above) and took the court to Fuchs many authorities to make good the point. I am inclined to agree with Mr Wong. It is indeed very difficult to see what right of the employee can be abrogated when the contract of employment comes to an end lawfully. In other words, in such cases the employee no “surrenders : see paras 21(d) (referring to [1950] 2 Fuchs, Dale v de Soissons rights” All ER 460) and 26. For completeness, it should be mentioned that the Separation Agreement was clearly drafted by lawyers and, expectedly, it referred to
With respect, these are illusory answers. They can only serve to expose the fragility of the Taxpayer’s case. I see no right to sue for wrongful dismissal when the Company’s entitlement to terminate the Service Agreement with 6 months’ notice is not disputed. The resignation from all the directorships of the Company’s subsidiaries was provided for in the Service Agreement – the Taxpayer was obliged to resign from such directorships upon termination of his employment with the Company (Decision, paras 42 to 44). I should add that this court has been read many of the provisions in the Separation Agreement. However, I am unable to see how they affect the true nature of Sum D (and the Share Option Gain). Mr Wong was at pains to point out that where, as here, the employer had a right to terminate the employment contract, the termination of contract pursuant to such right cannot give rise to an abrogation of the employee’s rights (assuming that the employee’s entitlements upon termination, eg, payment in lieu of notice, have been met). Mr Wong relied upon para 19 of Fuchs (see para 17 above) and took the court to many authorities to make good the point. I am inclined to agree with Mr Wong. It is indeed very difficult to see what right of the employee can be abrogated when the contract of employment comes to an end lawfully. In other words, in such cases the employee “surrenders no rights” : see Fuchs, paras 21(d) (referring to Dale v de Soissons [1950] 2 All ER 460) and 26. For completeness, it should be mentioned that the Separation Agreement was clearly drafted by lawyers and, expectedly, it referred to
HCIA000002_2015.docx