LAW CHI LEUNG, DONNY AND ANOTHER v. CHAU CHIU NUNG

LAW CHI LEUNG, DONNY AND ANOTHER v. CHAU CHIU NUNG

The judge found the taped telephone evidence demonstrated the defendant acknowledged a three-month loan and the defendant's contemporaneous assertions about a three-year term and alternative interest rate were inherently improbable and fabricated; therefore there were no triable issues and the plaintiffs were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LAW CHI LEUNG, DONNY AND ANOTHER v. CHAU CHIU NUNG
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Law Chi-leung, Donny; 2nd Plaintiff: Lam Wai-yuk (also known as Polly Law); Defendant: Chau Chiu-nung
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 February 2007
Case Number
DCCJ3666/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (summary Judgment Application) / Decision on Order 14 Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for the plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Loan Dispute, Interest Rate Dispute, Summary Judgment, Sham Defence, Admissibility of Taped Telephone Evidence
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Contract Debt Recovery Evidence Loan Dispute Interest Rate Dispute Summary Judgment Sham Defence +1 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Law Chi-leung, Donny

1st Plaintiff

Lam Wai-yuk (also known as Polly Law)

2nd Plaintiff

Chau Chiu-nung

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (summary Judgment Application) / Decision on Order 14 Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are triable issues preventing summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether the loan was for three months or three years
  3. 3 What interest rate was agreed (10% p.a. v. 1% above Australian bank savings rate)

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found the taped telephone evidence demonstrated the defendant acknowledged a three-month loan and the defendant's contemporaneous assertions about a three-year term and alternative interest rate were inherently improbable and fabricated; therefore there were no triable issues and the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment for AUD100,000 with contractual interest at 10% p.a. to the date of the writ and judgment interest thereafter, plus costs and counsel's certificate.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for the plaintiffs

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant in the sum of AUD100,000
  • Interest at 10% per annum from 17 June 2005 to 26 July 2006 (date of the writ)