Liming Capital Ltd and Another v. Yeung Hei Kwan, Jackie
Read the full judgment text of HCA 1818/2008 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 18 February 2010.
1. The Plaintiffs provide financial advice and help raise venture capital.
Cited by 3 cases
|
HCA 1818/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 1818 OF 2008 ____________ BETWEEN
____________ Before: Hon Reyes J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 18 February 2010 Date of Judgment: 18 February 2010 ______________ J U D G M E N T ______________ I. INTRODUCTION 1.The Plaintiffs provide financial advice and help raise venture capital. 2.In June 2007 Mr Ng Man Sun of A-Max Entertainment Holdings Ltd. (a listed company) engaged Ms Yeung to help place A-Max shares with investors. Ms Yeung was promised a commission of 3% on the capital raised by A-Max through the placement exercise. Mr Ng may have unilaterally reduced the promised commission to 1.5% at a later stage. 3.The Plaintiffs claim that in June 2006 Mr Weber (either acting on his own or on behalf of Liming) orally agreed with Ms Yeung to share equally all profits and commissions deriving from business deals and projects that they successfully procured through their joint efforts. The Plaintiffs further contend that in June 2007 Mr Weber (again either acting on his own or on behalf of Liming) orally agreed to help place A-Max shares with investors. It is the Plaintiffs’ case that, in return for Mr Weber’s assistance, Ms Yeung would pay half of the commission which A-Max would pay to her. 4.Mr Weber having assisted Ms Yeung in the placement of A-Max shares and A-Max having raised $2 billion through that exercise, the Plaintiffs sought payment of $30 million ($2 billion x 3% x 0.5) commission from Ms Yeung. Ms Yeung did not pay that amount to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs accordingly claim some $30 million in total in this action. 5.After persistent enquiries from Mr Weber, Ms Yeung deposited a Citibank cheque dated 15 July 2008 for $6,917,074 into Mr Weber’s HSBC bank account as part payment of the requested commission. However, she countermanded the cheque and no money was paid. 6.The Plaintiffs pressed for payment. As a result, on 8 August 2008 Ms Yeung entered into an “Ancillary Agreement” with Mr Weber (acting on his own or on behalf of Liming). By that document, Ms Yeung agreed to pay $7,917,074 to the Plaintiffs by 12 August 2008. The Ancillary Agreement stated that the agreed amount represented $11 million (half of the $22 million which Ms Yeung then claimed to have so far received as commission for the placement of A-Max shares) less $3,082,926 (an amount which Mr Weber acknowledged was due from him to Ms Yeung). Ms Yeung failed to pay the $7,917,074. 7.The Plaintiffs now seek partial judgment for the $7,917,074 stipulated in the Ancillary Agreement or, alternatively, for the $6,917,074 due under the cheque. The Plaintiffs failed to obtain judgment before the Master. They appeal against the Master to this Court. II. DISCUSSION 8.Mr Francis Haddon-Cave (appearing for Ms Yeung) submits that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to summary judgment for the following reasons:-
9.I do not think that the reasons advanced by Mr Haddon-Cave constitute arguable defences. A. 1st Ground: Mr Weber and Ms Yeung were lovers 10.Assume that Mr Weber and Ms Yeung were previously lovers. 11.I do not see why such a relationship means that they did not enter into any legally binding contract to share commission. On the contrary, Ms Yeung’s denials of a contractual relationship for the sharing of commission between herself and Mr Weber are not credible. The denials fly in the face of e-mails passing from Ms Yeung to Mr Weber explicitly acknowledging the existence of an agreement to share commission and promising to transfer monies to Mr Weber accordingly. 12.For instance, there is the following exchange of e-mails between Ms Yeung and Mr Weber on 24 September 2008:-
13.Ms Yeung in her affidavit evidence suggests that, far from being an admission of liability, all the exchange of e-mails shows is that:-
14.But I do not accept Ms Yeung’s gloss of the e-mails which I have quoted. Having read through her e-mail exchanges with Mr Weber, I do not think that what she says is believable. In particular, someone who “values a personal relationship” does not normally talk about “fighting until the end” if the other person goes to Court and claims $30 million. Nor does a person who is simply “sharing” proceeds out of deep affection for some other usually refer to an intention only “to pay you what you should be getting which is 50% of what I received from Mr Ng”. 15.In my view, in her e-mail correspondence, Ms Yeung unequivocally confirmed the existence of an agreement at least to share commission received by her from A-Max with Mr Weber on a 50-50 basis. B. 2nd Ground: Cheque subject to condition precedent 16.The amount of the cheque was calculated on the basis of an assumed total receipt by Ms Yeung from A-Max at the relevant time of $20 million commission. Half of $20 million gives $10 million. Subtracting $3,082,926 (acknowledged by Mr Weber as owing from him to Ms Yeung) gives the amount of the cheque. 17.Given such precise calculation (including the set-off of the amount owing from the Plaintiffs to Ms Yeung), I agree with Mr Norman Nip (appearing for the Plaintiffs) that it is hard to see how the cheque could only have been delivered in escrow subject to the alleged condition precedent. 18.There is no reference to the alleged condition in the parties’ e-mail correspondence. Indeed the delivery of the cheque subject to a condition is not pleaded in Ms Yeung’s Defence and is not mentioned in her affidavit evidence in these proceedings. Mr Haddon-Cave’s submission is thus unsupported by anything. 19.In actuality, the parties’ e-mail correspondence suggests the opposite, namely, that the cheque was not delivered to Mr Weber subject to any condition. 20.Ms Yeung paid the cheque into Mr Weber’s HSBC account in Hong Kong, Mr Weber being in Switzerland at the time. But Ms Yeung countermanded the cheque on the same day as when it was issued. Accordingly, no money was credited to Mr Weber’s HSBC account. When Mr Weber asked why the cheque bounced, Ms Yeung claimed that there must have been been some mix-up between HSBC and Citibank. Mr Weber then asked that Ms Yeung transfer the money directly to his account. Ms Yeung e-mailed back to say that she would investigate. She wrote: “Don’t worry will find out reason and sure you will get your money.” 21.Not only does Ms Yeung fail to mention the alleged condition precedent in her e-mails, but following the dishonour of her cheque she agrees to transfer the money directly and unconditionally to Mr Weber’s account once she clears the supposed bank mix-up. This is odd. Surely, if payment of the cheque amount was only subject to certain terms, Ms Yeung would have refused any direct transfer unless the alleged condition were met. 22.No attempt is made by Ms Yeung to explain in her affidavit evidence why she was apparently prepared to transfer money directly and immediately, if (as she maintains) payment was all along subject to some condition. Ms Yeung simply does not condescend to any particulars as to how, when and where the alleged condition precedent was communicated to Mr Weber. 23.I therefore find the suggestion that the cheque was only payable subject to some condition to be incredible. 24.Mr Weber was the payee of the cheque. He is in possession of the same because HSBC forwarded the cheque to him following dishonour. It follows that Mr Weber is a “holder” of the cheque. See Bills of Exchange Ordinance (Cap. 19) (BEO), s. 2. 25.There is a suggestion that Mr Weber’s claim under the cheque is not supported by sufficient consideration. There is nothing in such suggestion. The cheque was made out in part payment of a debt arising from the agreement between Mr Weber and Ms Yeung to share commission. That is valid consideration for the cheque. See BEO s. 27(1). In relation to the cheque, as against Ms Yeung, Mr Weber must be a “holder for value”. See BEO s. 27(2). 26.For the foregoing reasons, Ms Yeung’s defence against the cheque fails. C. 3rd Ground: Ancillary Agreement subject to condition precedent 27.The Ancillary Agreement does not refer to any condition precedent. 28.On the contrary, it recites that Mr Weber and Ms Yeung “agreed to share all Revenues and Commissions from the various transactions and deals they work on together in an equal way i.e. 50% for each party”. It declares that Ms Yeung has “so far received 22 million hk$ from Mr Ng Man Sun in cash at a rate of about $2 million hk$ every time [Ms Yeung] visits Macau since the beginning of 2008”. It then states that Ms Yeung will transfer the agreed amount of $7,917,074 by 12 August at the latest. The manner in which the agreed amount has been arrived at is also set out. 29.Finally, the Ancillary Agreement provides in cl. 9 that:-
30.In light of the entire agreement provision in cl. 9, it is difficult to see how Ms Yeung can rely on an allegation that her performance of the Ancillary Agreement was somehow predicated on Mr Weber’s returning to her. 31.Again nowhere in the e-mail correspondence between the parties at the time of the Ancillary Agreement does Ms Yeung refer to payment of the agreed amount being conditional upon Mr Weber’s return. Again nowhere does Ms Yeung condescend to particulars as to how, when and where the alleged misrepresentation by Mr Weber as to his return was made. Again Ms Yeung’s allegation strikes me as incredible. 32.There are other difficulties. 33.Assume that there was some representation by Mr Weber that he would return. Even on that assumption, I agree with Mr Nip that such representation could not be actionable at law. 34.First, what does it mean? It is far too vague. 35.Second, it relates to future intention, not to present fact. Only representations as to a present state of affairs are actionable. 36.Third, even if the representation were construed as a representation that at the time of its making Mr Weber had grounds for believing that he would “return” (whatever that might mean), Ms Yeung has put forward no basis for suggesting that Mr Weber in fact had no such grounds for so believing. 37.It is difficult to classify the nature of such alleged representation of a present state of affairs. 38.If it is being suggested that Mr Weber fraudulently (that is, deliberately) deceived Ms Yeung, no evidential or other basis for an allegation of fraud has been adduced. One cannot make an allegation of fraud without some sound basis. 39.Mr Haddon-Cave does not go so far as to allege deliberate fraud. But he faintly suggests that Mr Weber may have been reckless as to whether he had grounds for believing he would return. Recklessness is not specifically pleaded. But, in any case, it is hard to see how one can have been “reckless” as to whether there were grounds for believing that one would return. One either believes that there are grounds for saying one will return or one does not. 40.For similar reason, it does not really make sense (conceptually or linguistically) to say that Mr Weber negligently or innocently (albeit wrongly) took the view that there were presently existing grounds for saying he would return. Given what is said to be the misrepresentation of a present state of affairs, this cannot be a case of negligent or innocent misrepresentation. 41.On analysis, Ms Yeung’s real allegation must (if it is to make sense) be simply that Mr Weber deliberately misled Ms Yeung into believing he would return. But (as I have noted) there is no evidential or other basis for such allegation of fraud and Mr Haddon-Cave fairly acknowledged that he could not go so far. 42.At the end, all Ms Yeung appears to be saying then is that, since Mr Weber did not return by 12 August 2008, she did not pay by 12 August 2008 or at all, contrary to her contractual promise. That, however, is no basis at law for avoiding a contract. 43.It is suggested that Ms Yeung acted under a unilateral mistake (that is, her belief that Mr Weber would return) when entering into the Ancillary Agreement. However, such a mistake would not be sufficient to set aside a contract. 44.For the doctrine of unilateral mistake to operate, there must be a mistake by one party in relation to an essential term of the contract. Further, it must be shown that the other party knew or ought to have known about the mistaken party’s error. 45.Assume that the latter condition is met. There would still be a problem in meeting the first condition. Here the alleged mistake does not relate at all to a term of the contract. The Ancillary Agreement nowhere refers to Mr Weber returning or not returning to Hong Kong or Ms Yeung. The question of return is not a term of the Ancillary Agreement. Nor can it be regarded as a supplemental term (although only tacitly expressed) in light of the entire agreement provision in cl. 9. 46.For the foregoing reasons, Ms Yeung’s defences against the Ancillary Agreement also fail. III. CONCLUSION 47.The Plaintiffs’ appeal succeeds. There will be partial judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs for $7,917,074 (that is, the greater of the amounts due under the Ancillary Agreement and the cheque). Interest will run on that amount at 1% over prime from 8 December 2008 (the date when Mr Weber was joined as 2nd Plaintiff) to today. Thereafter, interest will accrue at the judgment rate until payment. I will now hear the parties on costs and consequential orders.
Mr Norman Nip, instructed by Messrs Gall & Lane, for the Plaintiffs Mr Francis Haddon-Cave, instructed by Messrs Cham & Co, for the Defendant |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 1818/2008