CFO loses $200,000 bonus claim after choosing his own interpretation of employer’s requirements

A chief financial officer (CFO) who sued for $200,000 in unpaid bonuses lost his case after a judge ruled that he had reinterpreted his employer's requirements. Ngai Nai Ping, who served as CFO at Banshing Industrial from November 2022 to January 2025, claimed he had fulfilled the bonus requirements through a financial valuation model he developed.

However, District Judge Jonathan Ng Pang Ern dismissed his claims, stating that Ngai had "unilaterally reinterpreted" the bonus criteria. The dispute arose when Banshing director Alvin Cheng Kaway set out the bonus requirements in an email in June 2023, outlining a financial valuation model in an Excel workbook with seven worksheets covering various aspects of the company's finances.

Ngai acknowledged receiving the email and later discussed the requirements with Cheng. However, Ngai claimed he had developed his own valuation and return-on-investment (ROI) model, which he argued met the purpose of the bonus. The judge rejected this interpretation, emphasizing that the seven worksheets were the actual criteria for the bonus and that Ngai had not satisfied them.

The judge also noted that Ngai's employment contract required the bonus criteria to be agreed and defined during his three-month probation, which he had ended. Ngai had argued that he completed the required work through his ROI model and other contributions to the company. However, the judge found his evidence "long on technical jargon but short on any meaningful explanation" of how his work satisfied the actual bonus criteria.