Foreign player awarded NT$10 million in wrongful contract termination

Taipei, June 24 (CNA) The Taiwan High Court on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling against TSG Sports Marketing Co., ordering it to pay US$324,483.21 (NT$10.3 million) in salary and housing allowances to a former member of the TSG GhostHawks, Canadian Gursimran Singh Bhullar.

The high court upheld a lower court ruling that the franchise unlawfully terminated the basketball player's contract while he was recovering from an injury, and ordered the club to pay the amount after deducting US$675.12 in housing allowances that were already paid.

The case dates back to January 2024, when Bhullar said he experienced discomfort in his foot in a T1 League game, reported it to the coaching staff, and was told to continue playing after his toe was taped.

He was later diagnosed with a torn ligament in the big toe of his right foot, according to court documents.

Bhullar said he followed the instructions of the team's coaches and medical staff throughout his rehabilitation in an effort to return to full fitness.

However, the team unilaterally terminated his contract on April 17, 2024, citing a contractual provision allowing dismissal if a player remained injured for more than 15 weeks and could not provide proof of having regained the required level of physical fitness.

Arguing that he had not breached the contract, Bhullar sought a court declaration that the agreement remained valid from April 18, 2024 through April 28, 2025, and demanded unpaid salary and housing allowances totaling US$325,158.33.

The High Court ruled that the company informed Bhullar of the alleged breach only by letter and failed to specify what evidence of physical recovery he was required to provide or give him a reasonable amount of time to do so.

The court also noted that the team had closely monitored Bhullar's rehabilitation and physical condition throughout his recovery and adjusted his training intensity according to his progress.

Given that the company was fully aware of his recovery status, its decision to terminate the contract lacked sufficient justification, the court found.

The ruling can still be appealed.