China Honour Service Ltd v. Li Yuet Kwan

DCCJ 4875 / 2004

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4875 OF 2004

------------------------

BETWEEN

------------------------

Coram : His Honour Judge Thomas Au in Court (open to public) 

Date of Hearing : 6,9,10,12,13 &18 July 2007

Date of Handing Down Judgment : 13 September 2007

Corrigendum

Para 23 should be read as follows:

“

23.

After taking into account of the 9 Repayments, the Alleged HK$5,000 Payment and P’s Wine Set Off Sum, it is the Plaintiff’s case that as at 15 September 2004, there was an outstanding balance of HK$564,206.11 (including interest) owed to the Plaintiff.  According to the Plaintiff, the interest has since still been accruing pursuant to the Interest Agreement.”

Paragraph 66 should be read as follows:

“

66.

Mr Jonathan Wong submits that the Defendant’s case on the valuation of the Wine is of suspect and should not be accepted because a 4 decimal figure exchage rate was simply never quoted or used by any underground or official money changers or banks.   Thus, as further submitted by Mr Jonathan Wong, the exchange rate of 1.0486 now relied on by the Defendant must therefore be a fictitious figure worked out by her by calculation subsequently to “perfect” her case on the HK$18,772 Repayment.”

Paragraph 79(5) should be read as follows:

“	79.	Under this issue, I do not accept the Plaintiff’s above evidence for the following reasons:
		…
		(5)	It is Mr Lau’s own evidence that, to protect the Plaintiff’s interest, he found it necessary to (a) reduce the Oral Loan Agreement into writing (i.e., the Chinese Agreement), and (b) to negotiate the Interest Agreement.  In these circumstances, I find it similarly incredible that somehow he did not regard it necessary to also reduce the Interest Agreement into writing, if there had in fact been such an agreement. I reject  his explanation that he did not find it necessary to reduce the Interest Agreement into writing because it involves a relatively small sum.  In insisting the Defendant to enter in the Interest Agreement as alleged, the Plaintiff through Mr Lau must have treated the interest payable thereunder as something not insignificant.”