CHAN CHAK HUNG v. CHENG SHU KEUNG AND ANOTHER

CHAN CHAK HUNG v. CHENG SHU KEUNG AND ANOTHER

Court found on the balance of probabilities that the written loan agreements were sham documents and payments were deposits for the purchase of the village house; there was a binding contract by part performance but the 1st defendant failed to prove any loss, so no damages were awarded; plaintiffs' claims on the loan agreements dismissed and counterclaim dismissed for lack of proven loss.

Citation
CHAN CHAK HUNG v. CHENG SHU KEUNG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Tan Kuan; Plaintiff: Chan Chak Hung; 1st Defendant: Cheng Shu Keung; 2nd Defendant: Cheng Fan Sang
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 April 2000
Case Number
HCA7253/1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract (loan/deposit) / Judgment at Trial (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; 1st defendant's counterclaim dismissed for lack of proven loss; costs order made in favour of defendants as specified.
Legal Topics
Sham Transaction, Part Performance, Deposit, Loan Agreement, Guarantee, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Equity Civil Procedure Sham Transaction Part Performance Deposit Loan Agreement +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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Kuan

Plaintiff

Chan Chak Hung

Plaintiff

Cheng Shu Keung

1st Defendant

Cheng Fan Sang

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract (loan/deposit) / Judgment at Trial (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written loan agreements were genuine or a sham
  2. 2 Whether payments constituted a deposit for purchase of a village house
  3. 3 Whether an enforceable contract existed by part performance

Ratio Decidendi

Court found on the balance of probabilities that the written loan agreements were sham documents and payments were deposits for the purchase of the village house; there was a binding contract by part performance but the 1st defendant failed to prove any loss, so no damages were awarded; plaintiffs' claims on the loan agreements dismissed and counterclaim dismissed for lack of proven loss.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; 1st defendant's counterclaim dismissed for lack of proven loss; costs order made in favour of defendants as specified.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claims on the loan agreements are dismissed
  • Counterclaim of the 1st defendant dismissed for want of proven loss