ZEE MARGARET v. WONG TSENG HON

ZEE MARGARET v. WONG TSENG HON

The Supplemental Agreement, by introducing an early partial repayment, an interest regime and a July 2009 cut‑off addressing the risks of Clause 6, varied and superseded Clause 6 of the Co‑operation Agreement so the Plaintiff was not entitled to enforce the Guaranteed Return or 50% profit under Clause 6; the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 59
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 January 2021
Case Number
HCA2190/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract Dispute (commercial/co‑operation Agreement) / Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Contract Interpretation, Variation and Supplemental Agreement, Repurchase Obligation, Guaranteed Return Vs Profit Entitlement, Characterisation of Payments (loan Vs Capital Contribution)
Source Language
en
Contract Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Contract Interpretation Variation and Supplemental Agreement Repurchase Obligation Guaranteed Return Vs Profit Entitlement Characterisation of Payments (loan Vs Capital Contribution)

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract Dispute (commercial/co‑operation Agreement) / Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supplemental Agreement varied and superseded Clause 6 of the Co‑operation Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff remained entitled to the Guaranteed Return of RMB65,000,000 or 50% of the profit under Clause 6 after the Supplemental Agreement
  3. 3 Whether interest guaranteed under the Supplemental Agreement could co‑exist with the Guaranteed Return or 50% profit

Ratio Decidendi

The Supplemental Agreement, by introducing an early partial repayment, an interest regime and a July 2009 cut‑off addressing the risks of Clause 6, varied and superseded Clause 6 of the Co‑operation Agreement so the Plaintiff was not entitled to enforce the Guaranteed Return or 50% profit under Clause 6; the Plaintiff's action is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay Defendant's costs with a certificate for two counsel; costs to be taxed if not agreed (order nisi made).