CHUY KEDI formerly known as CHUY PUI YEUNG v. AZPRO ENTERTAINMENT CO LTD

CHUY KEDI formerly known as CHUY PUI YEUNG v. AZPRO ENTERTAINMENT CO LTD

The court found fraudulent misrepresentation by Wu/Azpro induced the plaintiffs to enter the agreements; therefore the agreements were validly rescinded. The plea of undue influence failed for lack of proof and inordinate delay. Several contractual clauses (Clauses 1.6, 1.8-1.9, 2 and 11-14) were one-sided and constituted unreasonable restraints of trade and were void. Azpro also fundamentally breached the agreements and plaintiffs lawfully accepted repudiation. Remedies: rescission, nominal damages ($1), an account of remunerations to be taken by a Master under Order 43, and costs to plaintiffs (order nisi).

Citation
CHUY KEDI formerly known as CHUY PUI YEUNG v. AZPRO ENTERTAINMENT CO LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Tsang; Plaintiff: Chuy; Plaintiff: Chu; Defendant: Azpro
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 December 2017
Case Number
DCCJ1818/2015
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute (misrepresentation, Undue Influence, Restraint of Trade) / Judgment at Trial (district Court)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs: agreements rescinded; nominal damages awarded; account ordered; costs to plaintiffs (order nisi)
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Undue Influence, Rescission, Breach of Contract, Restraint of Trade, Accounting
Source Language
EN
Contract Equity Tort Restraint of Trade Civil Procedure Misrepresentation Undue Influence Rescission +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsang

Plaintiff

Chuy

Plaintiff

Chu

Plaintiff

Azpro

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Dispute (misrepresentation, Undue Influence, Restraint of Trade) / Judgment at Trial (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether representations by defendant induced plaintiffs to enter agreements (fraudulent misrepresentation)
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs were victims of actual undue influence
  3. 3 Whether alleged collateral promises survived entire agreement clause

Ratio Decidendi

The court found fraudulent misrepresentation by Wu/Azpro induced the plaintiffs to enter the agreements; therefore the agreements were validly rescinded. The plea of undue influence failed for lack of proof and inordinate delay. Several contractual clauses (Clauses 1.6, 1.8-1.9, 2 and 11-14) were one-sided and constituted unreasonable restraints of trade and were void. Azpro also fundamentally breached the agreements and plaintiffs lawfully accepted repudiation. Remedies: rescission, nominal damages ($1), an account of remunerations to be taken by a Master under Order 43, and costs to plaintiffs (order nisi).

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs: agreements rescinded; nominal damages awarded; account ordered; costs to plaintiffs (order nisi)

Orders

  • Declaration that each plaintiff was entitled to and has validly rescinded their agreement with the defendant
  • Nominal damages of $1 to the plaintiffs for misrepresentation by the defendant