LAU WAI YING v. CHEG BO CHU t/a MING CHU BOUTIQUE WITH ITS ACCESSORY PROPERTY INVESTMENT SECTION

LAU WAI YING v. CHEG BO CHU t/a MING CHU BOUTIQUE WITH ITS ACCESSORY PROPERTY INVESTMENT SECTION

The appeal was allowed because the adjudicator's decisive factual finding—that the defendant substituted her sister as purchaser and conspired to deprive the claimant of commission—was totally unsupported by any evidence, rendering the Small Claims judgment unsustainable.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LAU WAI YING v. CHEG BO CHU t/a MING CHU BOUTIQUE WITH ITS ACCESSORY PROPERTY INVESTMENT SECTION
Parties
Appellant/defendant: LAU Wai Ying; Respondent/claimant: CHENG Bo Chu trading as Ming Chu Boutique (Accessory Property Investment Section)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 February 1983
Case Number
HCSA13/1982
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Appeal / Appeal to High Court on Points of Law; Leave to Appeal Granted
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Small Claims Tribunal set aside
Legal Topics
Adjudicator's Factual Findings, Insufficient Evidence, Construction of Provisional Sales Agreement, Commission Entitlement for Estate Agent, Legal Aid for Tribunal Appeals, Allegation of Conspiracy
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Contract Agency Evidence Small Claims Tribunal Practice Adjudicator's Factual Findings Insufficient Evidence Construction of Provisional Sales Agreement +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LAU Wai Ying

Appellant/defendant

CHENG Bo Chu trading as Ming Chu Boutique (Accessory Property Investment Section)

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Appeal / Appeal to High Court on Points of Law; Leave to Appeal Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator's finding that the defendant substituted her sister as purchaser was supported by evidence
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was entitled to the claimed commission under the provisional sales agreement as constructed
  3. 3 Whether findings of conspiracy were proven on the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the adjudicator's decisive factual finding—that the defendant substituted her sister as purchaser and conspired to deprive the claimant of commission—was totally unsupported by any evidence, rendering the Small Claims judgment unsustainable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Small Claims Tribunal set aside

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and judgment of the Small Claims Tribunal set aside