What proof did Yu fail to show about Cheung receiving an advance?

Question

Accepted Answer

Yu Failed to Prove Advance Payment for Film Appearances

The Hong Kong High Court ruled that Samuel Yu Yuk-hing, president of Asia Entertainment Group (AEG), failed to provide sufficient proof that actress Cecilia Cheung Pak-chi received an advance payment of HK$2.76 million for her performances in two AEG films between 2011 and 2014. This lack of evidence was a key factor in the dismissal of Yu's HK$12 million claim against Cheung.
Insufficient Evidence of Advance Payment

Yu alleged that Cheung had breached agreements to star in films produced by AEG between 2011 and 2019. A central part of his claim involved an alleged advance payment of HK$2.76 million intended for Cheung's participation in two specific films during the 2011-2014 period. However, the court found that Yu could not substantiate this payment, deeming the evidence presented insufficient to establish that Cheung had indeed received the funds as an advance for these projects.
Questionable Contractual Basis

The judgment also highlighted significant doubts regarding the validity of the exclusive management agreement upon which Yu's case was founded. The court found it highly probable that a purported 2011 exclusive management contract was fabricated by Yu's younger brother. This suspicion arose in the context of an investigation by Hong Kong's Inland Revenue Department into a HK$40 million payment made by AEG to Cheung in July 2011, suggesting a potential motive for document creation.
Credibility of Witnesses Assessed

Mr Justice Herbert Au-yeung Ho-wing described Samuel Yu as an "incredible" witness, noting his evasiveness and inconsistencies in testimony. This assessment of Yu's credibility further weakened the foundation of his claim. While Cheung's testimony was deemed credible by the court, her assistant, Emily Chow Ching-yi, was found to have potentially withheld pertinent information concerning the preparation of the disputed 2011 contract.
Legal Battle Concludes

Ultimately, the court concluded that the contractual basis for the multimillion-dollar claim made by Yu was not established. This ruling brought to an end a closely watched legal dispute where Cheung had been accused of failing to honour commitments to appear in multiple films over an eight-year span. The dismissal of the claim signifies a legal victory for the Hong Kong screen star.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What proof did Yu fail to show about Cheung receiving an advance?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends