16 Feb 2007
Summary judgment was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to specify and prove the purpose(s) for which the monies were passed and did not adequately rebut the defendant's credible alternative explanation that the sums were capital contributions placed into the defendant's account, thereby creating real triable issues.
30 Mar 2006
The court accepted Siu's factual account, found the Oct 99 agreement genuine and that the parties treated personal and business dealings interchangeably such that the disputed sums were capital/contribution-related and the contract obligations remained unperformed; accordingly specific performance was ordered and the plaintiff's loan claim and counterclaims were dismissed.
6 May 2002
On the parties' conduct and contemporaneous documents the court found the joint venture profit sharing was 40% to Pau and 30% each to Lui and Law; the HK$3,000,000 was an advance/loan repayable before profit distribution; Pau was not entitled to a salary prior to profit assessment; Lui's single company share was held as nominee for Pau; and an independent accounting is required to fix sums due.