KWOK WING KIU v. BOXING PROMOTIONS LTD AND OTHERS

KWOK WING KIU v. BOXING PROMOTIONS LTD AND OTHERS

On the unchallenged evidence the plaintiff proved on balance that she entered both agreements under undue influence of Hung (a Class 2B relationship); D2 was put on inquiry and D3 acted through/with Hung so both had knowledge or constructive notice and failed to take reasonable steps to ensure independent advice; therefore both agreements were voidable for undue influence and were validly avoided by the plaintiff's solicitor's letters dated 4 March 2010; consequential declarations and costs orders follow.

Citation
KWOK WING KIU v. BOXING PROMOTIONS LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: KWOK WING KIU; 1st Defendant: BOXING PROMOTIONS LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: NICE JERK LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: MINNI CONNECTION LIMITED
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 May 2013
Case Number
DCCJ4578/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract (rescission/voidable Contract) / District Court Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Declarations granted: the Boxing Agreement and the Minni Agreement were voidable for undue influence and were avoided by the plaintiff on 4 March 2010.
Legal Topics
Rescission of Contract, Voidable Contracts, Undue Influence (class 2 B), Put on Inquiry/notice to Third Parties, Statement of Future Intention and Misrepresentation, Economic Duress, Repudiatory Breach, Declarations, Taxation of Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Agency Law Equity (undue Influence) Misrepresentation Duress Remedies and Restitution Costs Rescission of Contract +8 more

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KWOK WING KIU

Plaintiff

BOXING PROMOTIONS LIMITED

1st Defendant

NICE JERK LIMITED

2nd Defendant

MINNI CONNECTION LIMITED

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract (rescission/voidable Contract) / District Court Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Boxing Agreement and the Minni Agreement were procured by misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff entered the agreements under undue influence by Hung and whether that undue influence tainted the defendants
  3. 3 Whether defendants D2 and D3 were put on inquiry or agents of Hung such that they had constructive knowledge of undue influence

Ratio Decidendi

On the unchallenged evidence the plaintiff proved on balance that she entered both agreements under undue influence of Hung (a Class 2B relationship); D2 was put on inquiry and D3 acted through/with Hung so both had knowledge or constructive notice and failed to take reasonable steps to ensure independent advice; therefore both agreements were voidable for undue influence and were validly avoided by the plaintiff's solicitor's letters dated 4 March 2010; consequential declarations and costs orders follow.

Court Disposition

Declarations granted: the Boxing Agreement and the Minni Agreement were voidable for undue influence and were avoided by the plaintiff on 4 March 2010.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Boxing Agreement dated 1 May 2008 is voidable for undue influence and was avoided by plaintiff on 4 March 2010
  • Declaration that the Minni Agreement dated 1 May 2008 is voidable for undue influence and was avoided by plaintiff on 4 March 2010