CHAN SZE SZE GABRIELLE v. TU CHRISTOPHER

CHAN SZE SZE GABRIELLE v. TU CHRISTOPHER

Plaintiff was not a money lender; loan of HK$3,000,000 is enforceable; Loan Agreement to be rectified by deleting Clause 3.2; Defendant breached the Agency Agreement by consigning paintings to Christies and denying Plaintiff access; Plaintiff owed no contractual or tortious duty to advise on authenticity or valuation; counterclaim dismissed; judgment for Plaintiff for HK$3,000,000 plus contractual interest and costs, damages for breach of agency to be assessed.

Citation
CHAN SZE SZE GABRIELLE v. TU CHRISTOPHER
Parties
Defendant: TU CHRISTOPHER
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 April 2009
Case Number
HCA2007/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Loan and Agency Dispute / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff; Counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Loan Agreement, Agency Agreement, Rectification, Money Lenders Ordinance (cap 163), Compound Interest, Breach of Contract, Duty of Care, Estoppel, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Tort Equity Commercial Law Civil Procedure Property Law Regulatory Law (money Lending) Loan Agreement +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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TU CHRISTOPHER

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Loan and Agency Dispute / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff was a money lender within Money Lenders Ordinance and whether money‑lender defences succeed
  2. 2 Whether Loan Agreement should be rectified by deleting Clause 3.2
  3. 3 Whether Clause 3.2 (compound interest) renders the loan illegal or unenforceable

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff was not a money lender; loan of HK$3,000,000 is enforceable; Loan Agreement to be rectified by deleting Clause 3.2; Defendant breached the Agency Agreement by consigning paintings to Christies and denying Plaintiff access; Plaintiff owed no contractual or tortious duty to advise on authenticity or valuation; counterclaim dismissed; judgment for Plaintiff for HK$3,000,000 plus contractual interest and costs, damages for breach of agency to be assessed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff; Counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of HK$3,000,000
  • Contractual interest at 2% per month from 1 October 2005 until judgment on 6 January 2009, and thereafter interest at the judgment rate until full payment