MAN CHIN CHIN IVY AND ANOTHER v. BLANDUS INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

MAN CHIN CHIN IVY AND ANOTHER v. BLANDUS INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the SPA and Assignment reflected the true agreed consideration of HK$4.5 million, the Important Private Agreement and unsigned Products Agreement were inadmissible or unproven, the IOU for RMB3,555,000 was authentic and P1 owed that debt, HK$452,398 of Products had been supplied, and an oral agreement to set off mortgage repayment, loan and product costs against the property existed; consequently Ps’ claim failed and Ds’ counterclaim succeeded resulting in a net judgment against P1 for HK$2,408,480.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 490
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Man Chin Chin Ivy; 2nd Plaintiff: Trendy East Limited; 1st Defendant: Blandus International Development Limited; 2nd Defendant: Huang Yanni
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 January 2025
Case Number
HCA1299/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Sale of Property, Contract and Counterclaim / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed; Defendants' counterclaim succeeded against the 1st plaintiff (Man Chin Chin Ivy)
Legal Topics
Parol Evidence Rule, Set Off, Oral Agreement, Admissibility Under Stamp Duty Ordinance S15, Assessment of Damages and Interest, Credibility of Witnesses
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Law Tax/stamp Duty Evidence Parol Evidence Rule Set Off Oral Agreement Admissibility Under Stamp Duty Ordinance S15 +2 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Man Chin Chin Ivy

1st Plaintiff

Trendy East Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Blandus International Development Limited

1st Defendant

Huang Yanni

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Sale of Property, Contract and Counterclaim / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was the agreed consideration for the transfer of the Property?
  2. 2 Did P1 and D2 enter into the Important Private Agreement on 22 April 2016?
  3. 3 Did P1, D1 and D2 reach the Products Agreement?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the SPA and Assignment reflected the true agreed consideration of HK$4.5 million, the Important Private Agreement and unsigned Products Agreement were inadmissible or unproven, the IOU for RMB3,555,000 was authentic and P1 owed that debt, HK$452,398 of Products had been supplied, and an oral agreement to set off mortgage repayment, loan and product costs against the property existed; consequently Ps’ claim failed and Ds’ counterclaim succeeded resulting in a net judgment against P1 for HK$2,408,480.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed; Defendants' counterclaim succeeded against the 1st plaintiff (Man Chin Chin Ivy)

Orders

  • 1st plaintiff to pay 1st defendant and 2nd defendant damages of HK$2,408,480.
  • Interest on HK$2,408,480 from 18 November 2020 to 28 January 2025 at prime rate +1%.