Visit the global automotive industry news blog with Asia automotive industry news and India automotive industry news.
"Lessons Learned: China and India"
Edward Carpenter
Edward Carpenter
ASIA: "Asian asset management assessing the tax climate" report
ASIA: "Asian asset management assessing the tax climate" report. 8-page report by Ernst & Young.
proceed to download
ASIA: "Asian asset management assessing the tax climate" report. 8-page report by Ernst & Young.
proceed to download
eJournals
Employers Beware: The Changing Landscape of Assignments to Hong Kong
Cantor Fitzgerald Europe & Others v. Boyer & Others (HCA11/60 2011).
In Brief:
The Plaintiff employers, Cantor Fitzgerald Europe and Cantor HK brought proceedings against four former employees for alleged breaches of employment contracts, fiduciary and fidelity duties. The Court of First Instance dismissed the majority of the Plaintiffs' claims in a decision that contained some unexpected elements which may signal a changing landscape for employers and senior employees. There are a number of noteworthy features to the judgment and we set out a few key highlights below:
• Application of the Employment Ordinance to foreign employment contracts: The Court held that the Employment Ordinance ("EO") applies to foreign employment contracts if the individual works in Hong Kong. This means that secondees may rely on provisions of the EO such as the right to buy out their notice periods. Foreign employers are unlikely to be prepared for this given that it is a reversal of the position under the previous authority of HSBC Bank plc v Wallace [2008]. This challenging situation may be exacerbated if the employee is senior and there is a concern that their post termination restrictions may be unenforceable, thus enabling them to join a competitor within days of leaving their former employer.
• Fixed notice periods: The Court found that the EO overrode an express term which specifically prohibited the employee from serving notice until a fixed term had passed, allowing the employee to serve notice at any time and to make a payment of wages in lieu of notice.
• Post termination restrictions: The Court took a fairly strong line on the restrictive covenants and found them to be either not breached or unenforceable due to insufficient tailoring or evidence to justify the period of restriction.
Background
The Cantor Fitzgerald group is a global financial services provider operating in major financial centres throughout the world. In the UK, the company operates as Cantor Fitzgerald Europe, ("CFE") and in Hong Kong as Cantor HK. The first Defendant, Boyer, was employed in the UK by CFE and seconded to Cantor HK where he was a Managing Director. The second and third Defendants, Ainslie and McGonegal were Managing Directors of Cantor HK's Cash Equities Desk. The fourth Defendant, Von Parpart was a Managing Director and Chief Economist and Strategist in Cantor HK.
Each Defendant resigned from their respective employment on 30 May 2011 and all signed employment contracts with Mansion House Financial Holdings Ltd ("Mansion House") on the same day. Mansion House had recently been re-structured and the Cantor Fitzgerald group had been offered the opportunity to invest as part of an alliance with a Hong Kong businessman, but negotiations had broken down and no deal was concluded.
On 5 July 2011, four more Cantor HK employees resigned to join Mansion House and on 8 September 2011, CFE and Cantor HK successfully obtained limited interlocutory injunctions against the Defendants based on their restrictive covenants. The injunctions had expired by the date of the trial and the Plaintiffs' claims were for damages against the Defendants for various breaches of their employment contracts and for breach of fiduciary and fidelity duties.
The specifics:
There were several claims made against each of the Defendants. We examine the significant ones below in conjunction with the findings of the Court of First Instance.
1. Allegations of breach of fiduciary duties or duties of fidelity owed to the Plaintiffs
It was established that the Defendants owed one or more of the following duties to the Plaintiffs:
(i) a contractual duty of fidelity to CFE (Boyer);
(ii) a fiduciary obligation to Cantor HK as a Managing Director (Boyer);
(iii) a contractual duty to disclose in writing if an approach was made to take up employment with a competitor (Boyer);
(iv) a contractual duty of fidelity to Cantor HK (Ainslie, McGonegal and Von Parpart);
(iv) a contractual duty to inform Cantor HK "as soon as reasonably practicable" if he became aware that another employee had been invited or approached to take up employment, or enter into a business relationship, with a "competitor" (Ainslie).
The above duties, contractual or otherwise were alleged to have been breached by the Defendants when they allegedly procured the other Defendants to resign to join a competitor or acted in concert with other Defendants to leave together to join a competitor.
In relation to fiduciary duties, it was considered that Ainslie and McGonegal held corporate Managing Director titles with no board of director or management of Cantor HK responsibilities, unlike Boyer. The Court held that for the purposes of this case, the duties were not distinguished too finely, but where either duty was owed, that individual was obliged not to act in a way which is contrary to the interests of an employer or company.
The evidence of the Defendants being fully aware that each was negotiating to join Mansion House was overwhelming. It included:
• All Defendants attending a lunch in January 2011 and a dinner in May 2011 with an investor to discuss working with Mansion House.
• The Defendants discussing the instruction of lawyers and eventually all instructing the same firm which negotiated near identical employment contracts with Mansion House and drafted near identical letters of resignation for the Defendants.
• Boyer told a close colleague that he was planning to leave Cantor Fitzgerald and he had "a few key people" that he was "taking with [him]".
Ultimately the Court concluded that the Defendants were not in breach of their duties by acting in concert or procuring each other to leave CFE and Cantor HK, on the basis that although they knew each other was thinking of resigning, the Defendants came to their decisions separately. It was considered persuasive that:
• McGonegal was to be appointed CEO of Mansion House which caused some concern for Boyer and Ainslie as their seniority in Cantor HK would not be replicated with their new employer.
• They did not present themselves as a package and each negotiated independently.
• The use of the same firm of lawyers and similarities in contracts and resignation letters represented a costs saving for the Defendants.
In relation to the failure to disclose an approach by a competitor, it was held that the expression "competitor" was vague and the ambiguity was decided against the Plaintiffs. It was further noted that Mansion House was effectively a start up and could not be considered to be a competitor of a global company such as the Cantor Fitzgerald group.
It was also held that a duty to inform an employer of an intention to resign or having been approached to resign, had to be an express one as it was incongruous with the principle that an employee is free to work or not work for a given employer. The only outcome of notifying an employer would be that they had an opportunity to persuade the employee to stay, but this could not be imposed by way of a general legal duty. It was held that even if there was such an express duty, it would be difficult to establish any damages flowing from this. It can be inferred from this that the Court considered that such express provisions are fairly futile in practical terms.
Ultimately the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to make out the alleged breaches of a duty of fidelity or of fiduciary obligations on the basis of the evidence that it reviewed.
2. Application of the Employment Ordinance to a foreign employment contract
Boyer sought to terminate his employment with CFE earlier than his contract of employment permitted, on the basis that sections 6 and 7 of the EO applied thus entitling him respectively to (i) terminate the contract by serving notice "at any time" and (ii) make a payment of wages in lieu of notice to CFE. His exercise of these rights was protected by another provision of the EO (section 70), which safeguards employees against contractual terms that seek to reduce their rights granted under the EO.
Boyer's contract of employment was governed by English law. Under that contract he could give notice only at a specified time. He was not entitled to buy out his notice period. However, when Boyer was seconded to Cantor HK, his employment was varied by a letter of secondment which provided that the contract was governed by English law "save for any mandatory employment laws of Hong Kong".
CFE contended that the proper law that applied to the contract was English law, which was chosen in good faith and that Hong Kong law could not override the express terms relating to termination. CFE relied upon the authority of HSBC Bank plc v. Wallace [2008]. In the HSBC case, the defendant was also a secondee to Hong Kong hired on an English employment contract and he had sought to buy out his notice period to expedite his termination date. During an interlocutory hearing the Court of First Instance concluded that the EO did not override the express choice of English law, in particular because the EO had no express overriding provision (unlike the English Employment Rights Act 1996, which states that it applies irrespective of whether an individual's employment is governed by the law of the UK or not).
The Court of First Instance confirmed that it did not agree with the reasoning in HSBC Bank plc v. Wallace and noted that it was not bound by it. The Court distinguished its position on the basis that in the HSBC case, the judge did not hear full arguments on this question, as it was an application for an interlocutory injunction unlike in the present case, which was a full hearing.
The Court held that Boyer was entitled to serve notice at any time (under section 6 of the EO) and make a payment of wages in lieu of notice (section 7 of the EO) on the basis that reliance on a foreign law could not thwart the protection afforded by the EO to employees working in Hong Kong (on the basis of section 70 of the EO).
It is noteworthy that the Court seems to have taken an even broader approach which goes beyond relying on the variation to the employment contract by the provisions in the secondment letter. The Court concluded that the EO was "intended to apply to all employments in Hong Kong, including employments governed by some law other than Hong Kong law". This was on the basis of language in the EO (section 4(1)) where it is confirmed that the EO applies to "every employee engaged here under a contract of employment, to an employer of such employee, and to a contract of employment between such employer and employee." The Court considered that the failure to expressly carve out employments governed by foreign law in the exceptions to the wide ambit of the EO (set out in section 4(2) of the EO), suggested that it should apply to employments governed by foreign contracts. It is not clear how this analysis would affect other potential breaches of the EO such as grant of annual leave and the prohibition on making deductions from wages. For example, an employee who remains on US payroll while seconded to Hong Kong would continue to have federal and social security taxes deducted from salary as required by US law. Technically, however, this deduction is a breach of the EO and a criminal offence. It is not clear how the Hong Kong courts would deal with such situations. It is also unclear how secondment agreements that expressly disclaim any employment relationship in Hong Kong would be treated.
3. Enforceability of restrictive covenants
The Defendants had a range of restrictions from poaching employees to commencing employment with certain classes of persons in a "business...in competition" with the Cantor Fitzgerald group. In the cases of Boyer, Ainslie and McGonegal, some of their restrictions were for a period of 12 months and the Court held that either there was no breach or that there was no cogent evidence to justify such a lengthy period of restriction.
In the circumstances, they were held to be unenforceable on the basis that they were too wide, there was no evidence to justify the restrictions and in relation to "competition", it had already been determined that Mansion House could not be regarded as being a competitor of the Cantor Fitzgerald group at the time of joining.
The Court also found that even though Ainslie had expressly acknowledged that the restrictive covenants in his contract were reasonable, such an acknowledgment was a factor to be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness but is far from conclusive on the question of reasonableness. Ultimately it was reiterated throughout the analysis that the Court had to be satisfied on the totality of the evidence that the restrictions were no more than what was reasonably required to protect the legitimate interests of an employer. Interestingly, the equivalent restrictions in Von Parpart's contract were for 3 months and these were still regarded as too wide as there was no evidence to show that the duration was reasonably necessary to protect Cantor HK's interests.
4. Notice of termination in HK contracts
As employees of Cantor HK, Ainslie, McGonegal and Von Parpart's employment contracts were subject to the mandatory sections of the EO which have been outlined above.
Ainslie's employment contract provided that notice had to be given "on any date within the last two (2) weeks of the final month of...a Renewal Period". Such notice will then terminate the employment "on the expiry of three (3) months (which period of notice the parties agree is reasonable) from the latest date notice could have been given". In spite of this, Ainslie was entitled to give 3 months of notice "at any time" (section 6 of the EO) and to make a payment of wages in lieu of notice (section 7 of the EO).
There was a provision in Ainslie's employment contract which imposed liquidated damages where Ainslie left Cantor HK without their consent "prior to the expiry of the term of [his] employment contract". Cantor HK claimed liquidated damages of US$1,430,340.
The Court found that he did not leave in breach of his employment contract as he was entitled to terminate his employment in accordance with the EO. It was held that the terms of Ainslie's contract had to be read as subject to sections 6 and 7 of the EO. If not, the liquidated damages clause would operate to restrain an employee's freedom to exercise the rights given by EO sections 6 and 7. It was also noted that even if the clause was otherwise enforceable, it did not constitute a genuine pre-estimate of the damage suffered by Ainslie's premature departure.
Take away points:
1. Foreign employers need to be aware that there is a risk that mandatory terms of the EO may override some of their express terms in the employment contracts of secondees or other staff working on foreign employment contracts in Hong Kong. It may be that this case will be distinguished on its facts, but that will not be known until the point is argued before a higher court. Therefore at present, employers need to beware that this changes the landscape. Greater care needs to be given to the review and/or drafting of post termination restrictions of employees working in Hong Kong, particularly in light of the position that this Court took on enforceability. It is noteworthy that the Court criticized the Plaintiffs for failing to appropriately tailor the restrictions and provide statistical data to justify the length of some of the restrictions.
2. Employers are encouraged to review secondment arrangements and ensure that if wording is included which may be construed to vary the base employment terms and render them subject to mandatory Hong Kong employment laws, that this reflects the intention of the employer. It is also worth noting that if a secondee does not have any fiduciary duties to the host company then it may be worth imposing contractual fidelity duties in the secondment agreement.
3. It is important to also consider in a secondment arrangement that if a secondee breaches their post termination restrictions and the loss is suffered by the host company, whether there is a contractual relationship between the two such that any loss can be recovered through a claim for damages. In this case, it was noted that had the post termination restrictions been enforceable, CFE had not claimed for damages and Cantor HK (who did allegedly sustain a loss) had no contractual relationship with Boyer, so would not have been entitled to damages in any event. Therefore consider the need to impose post termination restrictions in an agreement between the secondee and the host company.
Cantor Fitzgerald have filed a notice of appeal in respect of certain aspects of the judgment and we will update you on the outcome once the appeal has been concluded.
Source: Baker & McKenzie - GAI
For more information or to contact Baker & McKenzie, please click here.
backASIAtalk May, 2012
Employers Beware: The Changing Landscape of Assignments to Hong Kong
Cantor Fitzgerald Europe & Others v. Boyer & Others (HCA11/60 2011).
In Brief:
The Plaintiff employers, Cantor Fitzgerald Europe and Cantor HK brought proceedings against four former employees for alleged breaches of employment contracts, fiduciary and fidelity duties. The Court of First Instance dismissed the majority of the Plaintiffs' claims in a decision that contained some unexpected elements which may signal a changing landscape for employers and senior employees. There are a number of noteworthy features to the judgment and we set out a few key highlights below:
• Application of the Employment Ordinance to foreign employment contracts: The Court held that the Employment Ordinance ("EO") applies to foreign employment contracts if the individual works in Hong Kong. This means that secondees may rely on provisions of the EO such as the right to buy out their notice periods. Foreign employers are unlikely to be prepared for this given that it is a reversal of the position under the previous authority of HSBC Bank plc v Wallace [2008]. This challenging situation may be exacerbated if the employee is senior and there is a concern that their post termination restrictions may be unenforceable, thus enabling them to join a competitor within days of leaving their former employer.
• Fixed notice periods: The Court found that the EO overrode an express term which specifically prohibited the employee from serving notice until a fixed term had passed, allowing the employee to serve notice at any time and to make a payment of wages in lieu of notice.
• Post termination restrictions: The Court took a fairly strong line on the restrictive covenants and found them to be either not breached or unenforceable due to insufficient tailoring or evidence to justify the period of restriction.
Background
The Cantor Fitzgerald group is a global financial services provider operating in major financial centres throughout the world. In the UK, the company operates as Cantor Fitzgerald Europe, ("CFE") and in Hong Kong as Cantor HK. The first Defendant, Boyer, was employed in the UK by CFE and seconded to Cantor HK where he was a Managing Director. The second and third Defendants, Ainslie and McGonegal were Managing Directors of Cantor HK's Cash Equities Desk. The fourth Defendant, Von Parpart was a Managing Director and Chief Economist and Strategist in Cantor HK.
Each Defendant resigned from their respective employment on 30 May 2011 and all signed employment contracts with Mansion House Financial Holdings Ltd ("Mansion House") on the same day. Mansion House had recently been re-structured and the Cantor Fitzgerald group had been offered the opportunity to invest as part of an alliance with a Hong Kong businessman, but negotiations had broken down and no deal was concluded.
On 5 July 2011, four more Cantor HK employees resigned to join Mansion House and on 8 September 2011, CFE and Cantor HK successfully obtained limited interlocutory injunctions against the Defendants based on their restrictive covenants. The injunctions had expired by the date of the trial and the Plaintiffs' claims were for damages against the Defendants for various breaches of their employment contracts and for breach of fiduciary and fidelity duties.
The specifics:
There were several claims made against each of the Defendants. We examine the significant ones below in conjunction with the findings of the Court of First Instance.
1. Allegations of breach of fiduciary duties or duties of fidelity owed to the Plaintiffs
It was established that the Defendants owed one or more of the following duties to the Plaintiffs:
(i) a contractual duty of fidelity to CFE (Boyer);
(ii) a fiduciary obligation to Cantor HK as a Managing Director (Boyer);
(iii) a contractual duty to disclose in writing if an approach was made to take up employment with a competitor (Boyer);
(iv) a contractual duty of fidelity to Cantor HK (Ainslie, McGonegal and Von Parpart);
(iv) a contractual duty to inform Cantor HK "as soon as reasonably practicable" if he became aware that another employee had been invited or approached to take up employment, or enter into a business relationship, with a "competitor" (Ainslie).
The above duties, contractual or otherwise were alleged to have been breached by the Defendants when they allegedly procured the other Defendants to resign to join a competitor or acted in concert with other Defendants to leave together to join a competitor.
In relation to fiduciary duties, it was considered that Ainslie and McGonegal held corporate Managing Director titles with no board of director or management of Cantor HK responsibilities, unlike Boyer. The Court held that for the purposes of this case, the duties were not distinguished too finely, but where either duty was owed, that individual was obliged not to act in a way which is contrary to the interests of an employer or company.
The evidence of the Defendants being fully aware that each was negotiating to join Mansion House was overwhelming. It included:
• All Defendants attending a lunch in January 2011 and a dinner in May 2011 with an investor to discuss working with Mansion House.
• The Defendants discussing the instruction of lawyers and eventually all instructing the same firm which negotiated near identical employment contracts with Mansion House and drafted near identical letters of resignation for the Defendants.
• Boyer told a close colleague that he was planning to leave Cantor Fitzgerald and he had "a few key people" that he was "taking with [him]".
Ultimately the Court concluded that the Defendants were not in breach of their duties by acting in concert or procuring each other to leave CFE and Cantor HK, on the basis that although they knew each other was thinking of resigning, the Defendants came to their decisions separately. It was considered persuasive that:
• McGonegal was to be appointed CEO of Mansion House which caused some concern for Boyer and Ainslie as their seniority in Cantor HK would not be replicated with their new employer.
• They did not present themselves as a package and each negotiated independently.
• The use of the same firm of lawyers and similarities in contracts and resignation letters represented a costs saving for the Defendants.
In relation to the failure to disclose an approach by a competitor, it was held that the expression "competitor" was vague and the ambiguity was decided against the Plaintiffs. It was further noted that Mansion House was effectively a start up and could not be considered to be a competitor of a global company such as the Cantor Fitzgerald group.
It was also held that a duty to inform an employer of an intention to resign or having been approached to resign, had to be an express one as it was incongruous with the principle that an employee is free to work or not work for a given employer. The only outcome of notifying an employer would be that they had an opportunity to persuade the employee to stay, but this could not be imposed by way of a general legal duty. It was held that even if there was such an express duty, it would be difficult to establish any damages flowing from this. It can be inferred from this that the Court considered that such express provisions are fairly futile in practical terms.
Ultimately the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to make out the alleged breaches of a duty of fidelity or of fiduciary obligations on the basis of the evidence that it reviewed.
2. Application of the Employment Ordinance to a foreign employment contract
Boyer sought to terminate his employment with CFE earlier than his contract of employment permitted, on the basis that sections 6 and 7 of the EO applied thus entitling him respectively to (i) terminate the contract by serving notice "at any time" and (ii) make a payment of wages in lieu of notice to CFE. His exercise of these rights was protected by another provision of the EO (section 70), which safeguards employees against contractual terms that seek to reduce their rights granted under the EO.
Boyer's contract of employment was governed by English law. Under that contract he could give notice only at a specified time. He was not entitled to buy out his notice period. However, when Boyer was seconded to Cantor HK, his employment was varied by a letter of secondment which provided that the contract was governed by English law "save for any mandatory employment laws of Hong Kong".
CFE contended that the proper law that applied to the contract was English law, which was chosen in good faith and that Hong Kong law could not override the express terms relating to termination. CFE relied upon the authority of HSBC Bank plc v. Wallace [2008]. In the HSBC case, the defendant was also a secondee to Hong Kong hired on an English employment contract and he had sought to buy out his notice period to expedite his termination date. During an interlocutory hearing the Court of First Instance concluded that the EO did not override the express choice of English law, in particular because the EO had no express overriding provision (unlike the English Employment Rights Act 1996, which states that it applies irrespective of whether an individual's employment is governed by the law of the UK or not).
The Court of First Instance confirmed that it did not agree with the reasoning in HSBC Bank plc v. Wallace and noted that it was not bound by it. The Court distinguished its position on the basis that in the HSBC case, the judge did not hear full arguments on this question, as it was an application for an interlocutory injunction unlike in the present case, which was a full hearing.
The Court held that Boyer was entitled to serve notice at any time (under section 6 of the EO) and make a payment of wages in lieu of notice (section 7 of the EO) on the basis that reliance on a foreign law could not thwart the protection afforded by the EO to employees working in Hong Kong (on the basis of section 70 of the EO).
It is noteworthy that the Court seems to have taken an even broader approach which goes beyond relying on the variation to the employment contract by the provisions in the secondment letter. The Court concluded that the EO was "intended to apply to all employments in Hong Kong, including employments governed by some law other than Hong Kong law". This was on the basis of language in the EO (section 4(1)) where it is confirmed that the EO applies to "every employee engaged here under a contract of employment, to an employer of such employee, and to a contract of employment between such employer and employee." The Court considered that the failure to expressly carve out employments governed by foreign law in the exceptions to the wide ambit of the EO (set out in section 4(2) of the EO), suggested that it should apply to employments governed by foreign contracts. It is not clear how this analysis would affect other potential breaches of the EO such as grant of annual leave and the prohibition on making deductions from wages. For example, an employee who remains on US payroll while seconded to Hong Kong would continue to have federal and social security taxes deducted from salary as required by US law. Technically, however, this deduction is a breach of the EO and a criminal offence. It is not clear how the Hong Kong courts would deal with such situations. It is also unclear how secondment agreements that expressly disclaim any employment relationship in Hong Kong would be treated.
3. Enforceability of restrictive covenants
The Defendants had a range of restrictions from poaching employees to commencing employment with certain classes of persons in a "business...in competition" with the Cantor Fitzgerald group. In the cases of Boyer, Ainslie and McGonegal, some of their restrictions were for a period of 12 months and the Court held that either there was no breach or that there was no cogent evidence to justify such a lengthy period of restriction.
In the circumstances, they were held to be unenforceable on the basis that they were too wide, there was no evidence to justify the restrictions and in relation to "competition", it had already been determined that Mansion House could not be regarded as being a competitor of the Cantor Fitzgerald group at the time of joining.
The Court also found that even though Ainslie had expressly acknowledged that the restrictive covenants in his contract were reasonable, such an acknowledgment was a factor to be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness but is far from conclusive on the question of reasonableness. Ultimately it was reiterated throughout the analysis that the Court had to be satisfied on the totality of the evidence that the restrictions were no more than what was reasonably required to protect the legitimate interests of an employer. Interestingly, the equivalent restrictions in Von Parpart's contract were for 3 months and these were still regarded as too wide as there was no evidence to show that the duration was reasonably necessary to protect Cantor HK's interests.
4. Notice of termination in HK contracts
As employees of Cantor HK, Ainslie, McGonegal and Von Parpart's employment contracts were subject to the mandatory sections of the EO which have been outlined above.
Ainslie's employment contract provided that notice had to be given "on any date within the last two (2) weeks of the final month of...a Renewal Period". Such notice will then terminate the employment "on the expiry of three (3) months (which period of notice the parties agree is reasonable) from the latest date notice could have been given". In spite of this, Ainslie was entitled to give 3 months of notice "at any time" (section 6 of the EO) and to make a payment of wages in lieu of notice (section 7 of the EO).
There was a provision in Ainslie's employment contract which imposed liquidated damages where Ainslie left Cantor HK without their consent "prior to the expiry of the term of [his] employment contract". Cantor HK claimed liquidated damages of US$1,430,340.
The Court found that he did not leave in breach of his employment contract as he was entitled to terminate his employment in accordance with the EO. It was held that the terms of Ainslie's contract had to be read as subject to sections 6 and 7 of the EO. If not, the liquidated damages clause would operate to restrain an employee's freedom to exercise the rights given by EO sections 6 and 7. It was also noted that even if the clause was otherwise enforceable, it did not constitute a genuine pre-estimate of the damage suffered by Ainslie's premature departure.
Take away points:
1. Foreign employers need to be aware that there is a risk that mandatory terms of the EO may override some of their express terms in the employment contracts of secondees or other staff working on foreign employment contracts in Hong Kong. It may be that this case will be distinguished on its facts, but that will not be known until the point is argued before a higher court. Therefore at present, employers need to beware that this changes the landscape. Greater care needs to be given to the review and/or drafting of post termination restrictions of employees working in Hong Kong, particularly in light of the position that this Court took on enforceability. It is noteworthy that the Court criticized the Plaintiffs for failing to appropriately tailor the restrictions and provide statistical data to justify the length of some of the restrictions.
2. Employers are encouraged to review secondment arrangements and ensure that if wording is included which may be construed to vary the base employment terms and render them subject to mandatory Hong Kong employment laws, that this reflects the intention of the employer. It is also worth noting that if a secondee does not have any fiduciary duties to the host company then it may be worth imposing contractual fidelity duties in the secondment agreement.
3. It is important to also consider in a secondment arrangement that if a secondee breaches their post termination restrictions and the loss is suffered by the host company, whether there is a contractual relationship between the two such that any loss can be recovered through a claim for damages. In this case, it was noted that had the post termination restrictions been enforceable, CFE had not claimed for damages and Cantor HK (who did allegedly sustain a loss) had no contractual relationship with Boyer, so would not have been entitled to damages in any event. Therefore consider the need to impose post termination restrictions in an agreement between the secondee and the host company.
Cantor Fitzgerald have filed a notice of appeal in respect of certain aspects of the judgment and we will update you on the outcome once the appeal has been concluded.
Source: Baker & McKenzie - GAI
For more information or to contact Baker & McKenzie, please click here.
Loading
Other articles from the same issue (May, 2012).
China in the Driver’s Seat
read on
India: Automobile sector-focussed policies on the anvil
read on
Asean Automotive Monthly: Executive Summary (March, 2012)
read on
India Automotive Monthly: Executive Summary (March, 2012)
read on
China Automotive Monthly: Executive Summary (March, 2012)
read on
India: Automobiles industry (April 2012)
read on
Car sales set to double in China by 2020
read on
Malaysia: MAA says new rules already impact sales of new vehicles
read on
China-EV.org Blog: Toyota EV guru Bill Reinert not keen on pure electric; China government would agree for now
read on
Asia Pacific Economic Outlook — April 2012
read on
2012 India attractiveness survey
read on
How to tap a market like India
read on
Manpower Employment Outlook Survey reveals Indian employers expect vigorous hiring pace to continue in the second quarter
read on
Asian Firms Offer More Variable Pay than Western Firms
read on
Comparative Employment Risks in the BRIC Countries
read on
Asian education systems lacking “practice orientation”
read on
Changes Affecting the U.S. Visa Application Process in Japan
read on
Destination Profile: Japan
read on
Employers Beware: The Changing Landscape of Assignments to Hong Kong
read on
Vietnam: Guidelines on the Recruitment of and Management Over Expatriates
read on
Japan's Special Economic Zones Offer Opportunity for Overseas Companies
read on
India: Electronics policy to be approved soon: Sibal
read on
Singapore: Skill shortage remains a problem
read on
The RMB is coming. Is your company prepared?
read on
China Expands Use of RMB as Cross-border Settlement Currency
read on
Study indicates India's urbanisation trend intact
read on
Vietnam Ministry of Industry and Trade to Facilitate U.S. Imports
read on
All about the fives: China’s transportation plans
read on
India accounts for half of global IT-BPO outsourcing
read on
Asia update: global headlines
read on
subscribe to eJournals
View our blogs:
The Asian Automotive Industry Market
The Brazil Automotive Industry Market
The Chinese Automotive Market
The European Automotive Market
The Global Automotive Market (HR edition)
The Indian Automotive Market
The Mexican and Latin Automotive Market
The U.S. Automotive Market
To visit GlobalAutoExperts Directory, click here.