Was there sufficient proof of an advance payment for film projects?

Question

Accepted Answer

The court found there was not sufficient proof that Cecilia Cheung received an advance payment tied to the film projects
Hong Kong’s High Court dismissed a HK$12 million claim after ruling that the former agent failed to establish the contractual basis of the case, including proof about an advance payment. The court specifically found there was insufficient evidence that Cheung had received an advance payment linked to the film projects in dispute.
The advance-payment point was central to the dismissed claim
The lawsuit sought HK$12 million on allegations that Cheung breached agreements to appear in films produced by AEG between 2011 and 2019. In its ruling, the High Court addressed the evidence for an advance payment and concluded that the proof was not sufficient to support the claim as framed.
The court rejected evidence of a specific HK$2.76 million advance
The judge ruled that Samuel Yu failed to prove he had paid Cheung HK$2.76 million as an advance for performances in two AEG films between 2011 and 2014. The dismissal therefore turned not only on the existence of relied-on agreements, but also on the inability to substantiate the alleged advance-payment transfers tied to those projects.
Lack of proof extended to whether an advance was connected to the projects
The ruling stated there was insufficient proof that Cheung had received an advance payment tied to the projects. This meant the court did not accept that the alleged advance was properly connected to the film arrangements at the centre of the dispute.
The court also questioned the contract relied on by the claimant
The High Court found Yu did not establish the foundation of his case, including that Cheung never signed the exclusive management agreement he relied upon. The judge also found a purported 2011 exclusive management contract was highly likely to have been created after Hong Kong’s Inland Revenue Department began investigating a HK$40 million payment AEG made to Cheung in July 2011, further weakening the evidentiary basis for the advance-payment allegations.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Was there sufficient proof of an advance payment for film projects?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends