What was the key issue with the alleged advance payment to Cheung?

Question

Accepted Answer

The court dismissed the advance-payment claim because Samuel Yu failed to prove Cheung received a specific HK$2.76 million advance tied to two AEG films in 2011 to 2014.
The High Court ruled that Yu did not establish the foundation of his case, including that Cheung had been paid HK$2.76 million as an advance for her performances in two Asia Entertainment Group (AEG) films between 2011 and 2014. The judge found there was insufficient proof linking any advance payment to the projects in question, so the contractual basis for the multimillion-dollar claim was not established.
The advance payment figure at the centre of the dispute
Yu alleged that Cheung breached agreements relating to AEG films, and the court addressed an asserted advance payment of HK$2.76 million. The ruling stated that Yu failed to prove he had paid that amount as an advance for Cheung’s performances in two AEG films spanning 2011 to 2014.
Insufficient proof of a payment tied to the film projects
The court found the evidence was not enough to show that Cheung received an advance payment connected to the disputed film arrangements. In practical terms, the judge ruled that Yu could not provide sufficient proof to support the advance-payment element of his claim.
The judge’s overall finding on the case foundation
Beyond the advance-payment issue, the court also ruled that Cheung never signed the exclusive management agreement Yu relied on. It further found that a purported 2011 exclusive management contract was highly likely to have been created by Yu’s younger brother after Hong Kong’s Inland Revenue Department began investigating a HK$40 million payment AEG made to Cheung in July 2011.
Credibility findings affected how evidence was treated
The judge described Yu as an “incredible” witness, saying he was evasive and gave internally inconsistent evidence on multiple issues. While the court accepted Cheung’s testimony as credible, it was less complimentary about her assistant, Emily Chow Ching-yi, in relation to information surrounding the preparation of the disputed 2011 contract.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What was the key issue with the alleged advance payment to Cheung?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends