僱主為規避花紅而解僱是否違約？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Tadjudin Sunny v Bank of America, National Association - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：關淑馨上訴法官、鮑馬漢上訴法官、周家明法官 - 判決日期：2016年5月20日 ### 案情摘要 原告Tadjudin Sunny於2000年加入美國銀行（被告），擔任不良債務交易組副總裁。其僱傭合約訂明，任何一方可給予一個月通知或代通知金終止僱傭關係，且原告有資格獲考慮參與銀行的績效獎勵計劃。原告的年終花紅佔其薪酬極大比重。2007年8月28日，銀行以一個月代通知金終止原告僱傭關係，未支付2007年花紅。原告聲稱銀行為避免支付花紅而惡意終止其僱傭，違反了僱傭合約中隱含的「反規避條款」(implied anti-avoidance term)。原審法庭裁定原告勝訴，判給港幣390萬元作為2007年花紅損失的損害賠償，但駁回其2005及2006年花紅不足的申索。銀行就裁決提出上訴，原告則就花紅不足的申索及判前利息利率提出反上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於僱傭合約中是否應隱含一項「反規避條款」，禁止僱主為避免支付花紅而終止僱傭關係。銀行爭辯此條款與其合約終止權及《僱傭條例》的保障條文不符，且缺乏互惠性。原告則主張此條款對保障其合理期望至關重要。此外，雙方亦就原審法官對事實的推論、約翰·利普塔克（John Liptak）的惡意是否可歸咎於銀行、以及2007年花紅的損害賠償金額和判前利息利率提出爭議。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭確認，在僱傭合約中隱含「反規避條款」是合理且必要的，以反映雙方的合理期望，即銀行不得為規避支付花紅而終止僱傭。法院認為，此條款與銀行明示的終止權利及《僱傭條例》的相關條文並無衝突，因其僅限制權力的行使方式，而非剝奪權力。法院亦裁定，約翰·利普塔克（John Liptak）的惡意行為可歸咎於銀行，因他在終止原告僱傭的過程中是銀行的代理人，且其行為操縱了高級管理層的決策。對於判前利息，法院重申應以最優惠利率（prime rate）加1%作為起點，除非有充分證據支持其他利率。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例來闡述合約條款的隱含原則及酌情權的限制： - BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v President, Councillors and Rateplayers of the Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266：確立了隱含條款的五項條件。 - Attorney General of Belize and others v Belize Telecom Ltd and another [2009] 1 WLR 1988：闡明隱含條款是合約解釋的一部分，而非額外測試。 - Clark v Nomura International Plc [2000] IRLR 766：確立了僱主行使酌情權時須符合非不合理或乖張的標準。 - Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald International [2004] IRLR 942：強調酌情花紅條款應具合約價值，僱主須真誠及理性行使酌情權。 - Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2003] 1 AC 518：討論了相互信任和信心義務的範圍及其與解僱方式的關係。 - Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500：關於公司歸屬原則的分類。 - Komala Deccof v Pertamina [1984] HKLR 219：確立了判前利息以最優惠利率加1%為起點的慣例。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回銀行就責任和2007年花紅損害賠償金額提出的上訴。原告就判前利息利率提出的反上訴獲准，原審法官判定的年利率2.85%被撤銷，改為自2008年3月1日起按香港上海匯豐銀行最優惠貸款利率加1%計算。原告就2005及2006年花紅不足的申索以及2007年花紅損害賠償金額提出的反上訴則被駁回。法院判令原告獲上訴訟費的50%，並發出聘用兩名大律師的證明書。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了香港法院在僱傭合約中隱含條款的原則，特別是在僱主酌情權的行使方面。法院強調，即使合約賦予僱主終止僱傭的權利，該權利亦受隱含的真誠、理性及正當目的限制，不得任意或惡意行使以規避合約利益。判決亦明確了在判前利息計算上，最優惠利率加1%的慣例仍是基準，除非有充分證據支持其他利率。這對僱傭法及損害賠償評估具有重要意義。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: Tadjudin Sunny v Bank of America, National Association - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Kwan JA, Barma JA and Chow J - Date of Judgment: 20 May 2016 ### Factual Background The plaintiff, Tadjudin Sunny, joined Bank of America (the defendant) in 2000 as a Vice President in the Distressed Debt Trading Group. Her employment contract stipulated that either party could terminate employment with one month's notice or payment in lieu, and she was eligible for consideration under the Bank's performance incentive program. Annual bonuses constituted a significant portion of her remuneration. On August 28, 2007, the Bank terminated her employment with one month's salary in lieu of notice, without paying her 2007 bonus. The plaintiff alleged that the Bank maliciously terminated her employment to avoid paying the bonus, breaching an implied anti-avoidance term. The trial court ruled in her favour, awarding HK$3.9 million for loss of 2007 bonus, but dismissed her claims for underpayment of 2005 and 2006 bonuses. The Bank appealed the judgment, while the plaintiff cross-appealed on the dismissed bonus claims and the pre-judgment interest rate. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether an implied anti-avoidance term should be incorporated into the employment contract, prohibiting the employer from terminating employment to avoid paying bonuses. The Bank argued this term conflicted with its contractual right to terminate and with the protections under the Employment Ordinance, and lacked mutuality. The plaintiff contended the term was essential to protect her reasonable expectations. Additionally, disputes arose over the trial judge's factual inferences, whether John Liptak's malice could be attributed to the Bank, and the quantum of damages for the 2007 bonus and the pre-judgment interest rate. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal affirmed that an implied anti-avoidance term was reasonable and necessary in the employment contract to give effect to the parties' reasonable expectations that the Bank could not exercise its termination power to avoid bonus payments. The court found no conflict between this implied term and the Bank's express termination rights or the Employment Ordinance, as it merely restricted the manner of exercising the power, not the power itself. The court also held that John Liptak's malice was attributable to the Bank, as he acted as the Bank's agent in the termination process and manipulated senior management's decision. Regarding pre-judgment interest, the court reiterated that 1% over prime rate remains the starting point unless sufficient evidence supports a different rate. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents regarding the implication of contractual terms and the restriction of discretionary powers: - BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v President, Councillors and Rateplayers of the Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266: Established five conditions for implying terms. - Attorney General of Belize and others v Belize Telecom Ltd and another [2009] 1 WLR 1988: Clarified that implying terms is part of contract construction, not an additional test. - Clark v Nomura International Plc [2000] IRLR 766: Affirmed that an employer's discretion must not be exercised irrationally or perversely. - Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald International [2004] IRLR 942: Emphasized that discretionary bonus clauses must have contractual value, requiring bona fide and rational exercise of discretion. - Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2003] 1 AC 518: Discussed the scope of the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence and its relation to the manner of dismissal. - Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500: Concerning the classification of corporate attribution rules. - Komala Deccof v Pertamina [1984] HKLR 219: Established the practice of awarding pre-judgment interest at 1% over prime rate. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the Bank's appeal regarding liability and the quantum of damages for the plaintiff's 2007 bonus claim. The plaintiff's cross-appeal on the pre-judgment interest rate was allowed; the trial judge's award of 2.85% per annum was set aside and substituted with an order for 1% over the HSBC prime lending rate from March 1, 2008, until the date of judgment. The plaintiff's cross-appeal against the dismissal of her claims for underpayment of 2005 and 2006 bonuses and the quantum for the 2007 bonus was dismissed. The court awarded the plaintiff 50% of the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal, with a certificate for two counsel. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the principles for implying terms into employment contracts in Hong Kong, particularly concerning the exercise of employer discretion. The court emphasized that even if a contract grants the employer the right to terminate employment, this right is subject to an implied restriction that it must be exercised in good faith, rationally, and for a proper purpose, and not arbitrarily or maliciously to circumvent contractual benefits. The ruling also clarified that the conventional practice of awarding pre-judgment interest at 1% over prime rate remains the benchmark, absent compelling evidence for an alternative rate. This has significant implications for employment law and damages assessment. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.