Read the full judgment text of DCCJ 2139/2011 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 4 February 2014 before Deputy District Judge D. Ho.
Contractual dispute between ex-spouses – Background involves a declaration signed by plaintiff ex-husband and undertaking signed by defendant ex-wife on 26 November 2010 regarding sale of Mainland property – Property registered in defendant's name but claimed to be held on trust for third party Jessie Lee – Divorce proceedings FCMC 156/2007 concluded – PRC law required plaintiff's consent for sale – Plaintiff demanded half selling price RMB390,000 in return for consent – Defendant signed undertaking to pay sum irrespective of sale completion – Defendant failed to pay – Plaintiff sued for payment – Defendant counterclaimed to rescind undertaking on grounds of duress, undue influence, unconscionable bargain, estoppel by record, agency – Defendant alleged plaintiff made threat to sue resulting in imprisonment – Court found defendant failed to prove threat was made as pleaded – Even if threat made, no causative effect on signing – Defendant's fear of imprisonment unjustified – Defendant eager to resolve matter – No evidence of pressure from purchaser or Jessie – Defendant had access to legal advice but chose not to seek – No duress of person or economic duress established – No undue influence as defendant's free will not impaired – No unconscionable bargain as no special disadvantage, oppressiveness or morally culpable conduct – Plaintiff genuinely believed entitled to half under overriding principle – Undertaking binding and enforceable – Judgment for Plaintiff in sum of RMB390,000 plus interest – Defendant's counterclaim dismissed – Costs order nisi against Defendant to be taxed if not agreed – Key legal principles from Chitty on Contracts and Nelson Enonchong applied – Authorities cited include Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v ITF, Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Aboody, Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil (Great Britain) Ltd, Lo Wo & Ors v Cheung Chan Ka & Anor – Court emphasized burden of proof on defendant to vitiate agreement – Court found defendant's evidence on Jessie's Worry and financial arrangement lacked credibility – Court noted discrepancy between Moann's evidence and defendant's pleaded case regarding threat – Court held threat sounded like incidental comment during conversation between father and daughter – Court found defendant not labouring under fear for imprisonment – Court found defendant more eager than plaintiff to resolve matter – Court found defendant not suffering from impecuniosities – Court found terms of bargain resulted from hours of negotiation – Court found no impropriety inferred from terms – Court found plaintiff's belief in entitlement not unjustified – Court found defendant failed to establish any grounds for vitiating Undertaking.
Legal issues: Whether the Threat was made as pleaded · Whether the Threat had causative effect · Whether there was duress · Whether there was undue influence · Whether there was unconscionable bargain
Outcome: Judgment for Plaintiff in the sum of RMB390,000; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
Cites 1 case