Although Reyes J. heard arguments that workers could take advantage of the opportunity of a short delegation to Hong Kong to improperly use the Section 7 Employment Regulations, the legislative intent of the Employment Regulation is clear and most of the employment regulation should be considered a mandatory application to employment in Hong Kong. In the absence of a clarification decision or an appeal decision since Boyer`s trial, uncertainties remain in this area. Let`s take another example of DIPA 10, T lived in the UK. F Asia Pacific Ltd offered him a position as regional controller. The F Asia pacific Ltd. site was located in the Cayman Islands. A recruitment agency was appointed by F Asia Pacific Company Ltd. and it obtained an agreement with T. T received the letter offer to the UK, as sent by the companies. While in the UK, T signed the letter of offer after accepting the offer.

For the Group of Companies in Asia, F Asia Pacific was a regional headquarters. His office was in Hong Kong. A board of directors in Hong Kong was responsible. T had to travel to different countries across Asia to do his business. T`s salary was not fully paid into his account in Britain or Hong Kong, but he was paid in part to his account in the UNITED Kingdom and others in part to his account in Hong Kong. The cost of T`s salary was recovered by F Asia Pacific by its partners and subsidiaries. The evaluators were satisfied with the above facts that T was employed in Hong Kong. After them now the source of his job is Hong Kong, as T had entered into a contract with Asia Pacific Limited and it is a company residing in Hong Kong.

Given that all other companies that use services provided by employers outside Hong Kong can collect tax accordingly, Hong Kong evaluators do not consider collecting the tax collected by their company outside Hong Kong. The other case is Cantor Fitzgerald Europe -v- Boyer [2012]. Boyer`s circumstances were almost identical to Wallace`s: hired in London; English law contract (without worker`s right at PILON); Hong Kong Order; Years later, the employee files PILON. The only other feature was that Boyer`s delegation letter stated that any “Hong Kong compulsory labour law” would apply. According to HSBC -v- Wallace, reyes J. was not bound by the Assistant Judge`s judgment in the previous case and found that an explicit regulatory clause was not such as to terminate worker protection under the Section 70 Labour Regulation. There are two authorities diametrically opposed to the question of whether a worker based in Hong Kong, but with an employment contract under foreign law, can benefit from Section 7 (1A) to create a PILON. At HSBC -v- Wallace [2008], an HSBC executive had been recruited in England for an immediate secondment to Hong Kong. His job had its closest and most real connection to Hong Kong. His contract was under English law, which has no equivalent to Section 7 (1A).

After three years in Hong Kong, the employee resigned and exposed a PILON who joined a competitor.