Ma Yu Wo v. The Personal Representative of Ma Wing Fung Deceased
Read the full judgment text of DCCJ 5248/2002 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 27 June 2003.
2. Save for the loans dated 10/9/99 and 1/11/99 the Plaintiff had shown that the loans were transferred to the deceased account from the Plaintiff's bank account. The Plaintiff gave evidence that the loan dated 10/9/99 was deducted by the deceased who was the head of a chit fund when the Plaintiff bid and drawn on the chit fund around 10/9/99. As to the other $40,000 the Plaintiff said he withdrew $40,000 from the bank and he produced the bank statement in support of his claim.
|
DCCJ005248/2002 DCCJ 5248/2002 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CIVIL ACTION NO. 5248 OF 2002 ------------
------------ Coram: H.H. Judge Wong in Court Date of Hearing: 18 June 2003 Date of Handing Down Judgment: 27 June 2003 ___________ JUDGMENT ___________ The Plaintiff claims against the estate of Ma Wing Fung deceased for $300,000 being loans by the deceased during his life time from the Plaintiff on divers dates between February 1997 and November 1999 particulars of which are as follows :-
2.Save for the loans dated 10/9/99 and 1/11/99 the Plaintiff had shown that the loans were transferred to the deceased account from the Plaintiff's bank account. The Plaintiff gave evidence that the loan dated 10/9/99 was deducted by the deceased who was the head of a chit fund when the Plaintiff bid and drawn on the chit fund around 10/9/99. As to the other $40,000 the Plaintiff said he withdrew $40,000 from the bank and he produced the bank statement in support of his claim. 3.In further support of his claim the Plaintiff produced 2 cheques dated 5/10/99 in the sum of $200,000 and 16/12/2000 in the sum of $100,000. 4.The Plaintiff also gave evidence that the deceased paid him interest at the rate of 2% p.m. in respect of those loans. 5.He was cross examined in minor detail by defence counsel. He was not shaken and he had given satisfactory answers to those questions. 6.Defence counsel also questioned about the chit fund which he submitted was illegal. However the loan given to the deceased was not connected with the chit fund. It was only after he drew on the chit fund when the deceased asked for the loan. 7.The Defendant elected not to give evidence after I put defence to election. There was no evidence which could contradict the evidence of the Plaintiff, I am satisfied on balance of probability that the Plaintiff had given the loans stated in the Statement of Claims to the deceased. Those loans had not been paid and that since 10/12/2001 neither the deceased nor the deceased personal representatives had paid the Plaintiff interests on those loans. 8.In the premises I give judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $300,000 with interests from 11/12/01 at 2% p.m. until judgment and thereafter at judgement rate. Costs to the Plaintiff.
Representation: Mr. Tsu Lung Sang, Edmund of Messrs. Chan & Tsu for Plaintiff. Mr. H.M. Leung, Paul instructed by Messrs. S.K. Wong & Lee for Defendant. |
Further hearings and rulings under DCCJ 5248/2002