Read the full judgment text of HCA 1584/2012; HCA 1243/2017 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 23 December 2020 before Coleman J.
Civil law – contract – oral agreement – existence and terms – intention to create legal relations – romantic relationship between parties – allegation of 10% profit sharing on investments – oral agreement said to have been made in Christmas 2002 telephone conversation – alleged agreement to pay 10% of net profits on real property and securities investments – subsequent written consultancy agreements (Loncham Agreement 2002 and All Gems Agreement 2008) – whether parties intended to create legal relations – whether alleged agreement was enforceable contract or mere promise of gifts – previous payments totalling around HK$19.5 million in 2007-2011 and further HK$10 million in 2012 – whether payments made under contract or as gifts – implication of terms – whether Notional Sale Term should be implied – whether No Avoidance Term should be implied – whether Additional Payment Term should be implied – 'effective cause' test for agent claiming commission – whether Ms Yu's recommendations were effective cause of Mr Chiau's acquisitions – House 12 Pollock's Path (Skyhigh Property development) – Beverley Hills Properties – Peregrine Greater China Capital Appreciation Fund LP – whether House 12 was always intended for Mr Chiau's self-use – whether property falls within alleged Oral Agreement as 'investment' – memory evidence and fallibility – contemporaneous documents – witnesses' credibility – Mr Chiau's personal involvement in design and decoration of House 12 – sale of other houses in development – limitation period – waiver – claim dismissed in both actions – costs nisi that plaintiff pays defendant's costs of both actions.
Legal issues: Existence of the Oral Agreement and intention to create legal relations · Implication of terms (Notional Sale Term, No Avoidance Term, Additional Payment Term) · Whether Ms Yu's recommendations were the 'effective cause' of the acquisitions · Whether House 12 was always intended for Mr Chiau's self-use · Quantum (assessed for completeness)
Outcome: All claims in HCA 1584/2012 and HCA 1243/2017 dismissed; Ms Yu's claims fail on multiple grounds including no intention to create legal relations, rejection of all proposed implied terms, failure to prove Ms Yu's recommendations were the effective cause of the Skyhigh Property and BH Properties acquisitions, and the finding that House 12 was always intended for Mr Chiau's self-use and so not an 'investment' within the alleged Oral Agreement
Cited by 55 cases · Cites 6 cases