Anti-avoidance terms can now be implied into employment contracts following the decision of Sunny Tadjudin v Bank of America, National Association, [2016] HKCA 201; CACV 12/2015. The Court of First Instance (“CFI”) found Bank of America, the employer, to have terminated a former senior employee’s contract with the dominant intention to avoid her eligibility to receive a discretionary bonus as part of the employer’s performance incentive program for that year. CFI evaluated the circumstances of the employment such as the structure of the  employee’s remuneration package, the express terms of the employment contract, the principles of reasonableness and equity and the consistency with the Employment Ordinance and found that the anti-avoidance term was implied in the contract.  CFI held Bank of America liable to pay damages of US$500,000 to the employee in respect of the annual discretionary bonus that would have been awarded to her. The Court of Appeal dismissed Bank of America’s appeal and held the decision in May 2016. This is a significant decision as it confirmed the implied duty of anti-avoidance at common law in Hong Kong. The employer will have the burden to exclude this implied duty by express contractual provisions at the risk of reputation harm and undermining the confidence of employees.  It is prudent for employers in Hong Kong to ensure that decisions regarding bonus awards and performance management are made for legitimate reasons and documented correctly. Employers may wish to provide adequate training for their HR/Legal department for managers involved in remuneration and performance related matters.