(A) Introduction
Sunsco International Holdings Ltd v. Lin Chunrong, HCA 500/2017, date of judgment: 7 November 2025 (“HCA 500”) [1] and 林代銳 v. 黎康新 and another, HCA 2104/2020, date of judgment: 7 November 2025 (“HCA 2104”) [2] establish significant precedents on evidence and cross-border enforcement.
These two action involved the same key parties in two legally distinct disputes. HCA 500 is a claim by Sunsco International Holdings Limited (“SIHL”) to recover from Mr. Lin Chunrong (“Lin”) the principal sum of HK$23,000,000 (“Sum”) and accrued interest from 5 July 2010, purportedly due under an oral loan agreement between the parties reached in May 2010 (“Alleged Oral Loan Agreement”). [3] HCA 2104 is an action by Lin to enforce two Mainland judgments in Hong Kong against 黎康新先生 (“Lai Sr”) and his son 黎子鉅先生 (collectively, “Lai Camp”) under common law principles. [4]
The Court dismissed the SIHL’s claim in HCA 500 and entered judgment in favour of Lin in HCA 2104. [5] This judgment is significant on the following grounds:
(1) Framework for Assessing Stale Evidence: In HCA 500, the Court provided useful guidance on resolving factual dispute where, due to a significant lapse of time, contemporaneous documentary evidence is scarce. It highlighted the reliance on objective facts, available documents and inherent probabilities.
(2) First Trial on the “Retrial Procedure” Issue: HCA 2104 was the first trial to directly address the issue of whether Mainland judgments are final and conclusive for common law enforcement in Hong Kong given the existence of the trial supervision procedure (審判監督程序), also known as the retrial procedure (再審程序) (“Retrial Procedure”) in the Mainland. The Court’s decision settles this previously unresolved point of law for cross-border enforcement.
(B) Facts
HCA 500 (The Loan Dispute)
SIHL’s Claim
SIHL alleged that in May 2010, Lin asked Lai Sr to lend him the Sum through SIHL as funds for liaising and securing a major infrastructure project (the “Relevant Project”). [6] By the Alleged Oral Loan Agreement made in or about May 2010 between SIHL and Lin, SIHL agreed to lend to Lin the Sum for onward lending by a company which Lin represented was held by him (later known by SIHL to be Grand Dragon) to Ying Fu. [7] On 29 May 2010, Grand Dragon and Ying Fu signed a loan agreement (“29/5/10 Document”) and the parties thereto agreed that Grand Dragon would lend the Sum to Ying Fu, with an annual interest of 4% for a term of one year. [8]
Pursuant to the Alleged Oral Loan Agreement, and in accordance with Lin’s instruction, on 5 July 2010, SIHL provided the Sum to Lin by a cheque dated 5 July 2010 in favour of Ying Fu. [9] Lin has not repaid the Sum or any amount. [10]
Lin’s Defence
Lin denied the existence of the Alleged Oral Loan Agreement. His defence was that the Sum was a pre-payment of consultancy fees to Ying Fu, engaged by a joint venture (“JV”) comprising SIHL’s parent company, Lin's company, and a third party for the Relevant Project. [11] He argued the 29/5/10 Document was evidence of this engagement. Lin pointed to subsequent payments from the other JV partners to a Sunsco-related entity in the Mainland as their contributions towards this fee. [12]
Agreed Issues for Trial
The parties agreed the following list of issues: [13]
(1) Whether the Alleged Oral Agreement was made in or around May 2010 between SIHL and Lin, and if so, what were its terms;
(2) Under the terms of the JV Agreement (a) what was the equity split and ration of contribution of the JV Partners and (b) whether the JV Partners agreed to appoint a consultant to, inter alia, liaise with the Mainland authorities on the JV Partners’ behalf;
(3) What is the true nature of the 29/5/10 Document, and in particular, whether Ying Fu agreed to and did provide consultancy services in respect of the Relevant Project.
HCA 2104/2020 (The Enforcement of Mainland Judgments)
Lin obtained judgments in the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court (“IPC”) and the Guangdong Higher People's Court (“HPC”) against the Lai Camp in 2017 and 2018 for repayment of three loans (collectively, the “Mainland Judgments”). [14]
Lai Sr did not attend the trial at the IPC. He subsequently applied for a retrial. One of his main grounds was that he was not given proper notice of the IPC proceedings. His application was dismissed by the HPC in 2021 on the ground that his contention lacked a proper basis. [15]
In the Hong Kong enforcement action, the Lai Camp argued the Mainland judgments were not “final and conclusive” because they could still be challenged and overturned via the Retrial Procedure in the Mainland.
The Disputed Issue
The only live issue between the parties was whether the Mainland Judgments are final and conclusive for the purpose of common law enforcement given the existence of the Retrial Procedure in the Mainland. [16]
(C) Decision
HCA 500 (The Loan Dispute)
The resolution of the issues in HCA 500 boiled down to the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. [17] There were two major challenges: [18]
(1) The contentious allegations and the seminal events go back a relatively long time. The JV Agreement and the Alleged Oral Loan Agreement took place in 2010 and the witness statements were only filed in 2023 and 2024.
(2) There were only scant and at best circumstantial contemporaneous documents to support/disprove the rival contentions on the terms of the JV Agreement and the existence of the Alleged Oral Loan Agreement.
Applicable Legal Principles
In this context, the Court applied the following principles to evaluate the evidence: [19]
(1) The Court would consider the inherent likelihood or unlikelihood of an event having happened, or the apparent logic of the events.
(2) The Court would assess the consistency of the evidence of a witness with undisputed or indisputable evidence, and its internal consistency, namely by comparing the oral testimony and his witness statement(s).
(3) The Court acknowledged the fallibility of human memory, especially after lengthy litigation. As such, the Court relied primarily on objective surrounding facts, available documents and inherent probabilities, taking into account the circumstances and relationships of the parties.
(4) The burden of proving the existence of the Alleged Oral Loan Agreement rested squarely with SIHL.
The Court’s Findings
The Court found that the Alleged Oral Loan Agreement did not exist and dismissed SIHL’s claim on the following grounds:
(1) Failure to Meet the Burden of Proof: The Court found that SIHL failed to discharge the burden of proof as there was no contemporaneous documentary evidence supporting the loan.
(2) Unreliable and Inconsistent Witness Evidence: The Court found none of the witnesses to be fully reliable. Wong and Chan failed to give cogent evidence regarding which entity was responsible for preparing crucial project application reports. Lin could not satisfactorily justify the Sum paid to Ying Fu as a reasonable fee for its purported services. Lai Sr’s evidence was critically undermined by various inconsistencies between his oral testimony, his witness statements and SIHL's pleaded case. [20]
(3) Inherent Implausibility of SIHL’s Case: The Court found that it was commercially illogical for Lin to bear both the risk of legal consequences and personal financial liability for a substantial sum intended to fund expenses that benefited all JV partners. [21]
(4) Contemporaneous Conduct Supported Lin's Defence: The payments made by the other JV partners to a Sunsco-related entity showed that the Sum was a JV expense, not a personal loan to Lin. [22]
(5) The 29/5/10 Document Supported a Consultancy: The 29/5/10 Document, which was provided to SIHL, outlined a consultancy arrangement for project services. The Court found that it was evidence of an engagement with Ying Fu, not proof of a personal loan to Lin. [23]
HCA 2104/2020 (The Enforcement of Mainland Judgments)
The Court held that the Mainland Judgments were final and conclusive and granted judgment in favour of Lin on the following grounds:
(1) The Retrial Procedure per se Does Not Negate Finality: The Court held that the mere existence of the Retrial Procedure in the Mainland does not automatically render all Mainland judgments non-final and inconclusive. The Court found that the Retrial Procedure is substantively similar to an appeal. Under common law, the possibility of an appeal or a default judgment being set aside does not preclude a judgment from being final and conclusive. Applying the same principle and logic, the theoretical possibility of a Retrial Procedure being invoked in the future does not preclude a Mainland judgment from being final and conclusive under common law. [24]
(2) The Prospect of a Retrial Procedure was Factually Improbable: The Court found that the likelihood of the Retrial Procedure being initiated by the Mainland court or the procuratorate on their own motion was only a theoretical possibility. [25] Lai Sr had already exhausted all available avenues to a party as his application for retrial was dismissed on the merits, and his subsequent application to the procuratorate was rejected. [26] Given the significant passage of time since these rejections, the Court found that it was “factually very improbable” for the Mainland court and procuratorate to initiate a retrial on their own motion. [27]
(D) Key Takeaways
This case is significant on the following grounds:
(1) Landmark Ruling on the “Retrial Procedure” Issue: HCA 2104 was the first trial to address the issue of whether Mainland judgments are final and conclusive due to the Retrial Procedure in the Mainland.
(2) Clarification on Finality of Mainland Judgments: The Court clarified that the mere existence of the Retrial Procedure in the Mainland does not automatically invalidate the finality of Mainland judgments. It found that the Retrial Procedure is substantively similar to an appeal. Mere theoretical possibility of a future appeal or setting aside does not undermine a judgment’s current finality under common law.
(3) Clarification on Fact-Finding Principles: The Court provides valuable guidelines for resolving factual disputes where significant time has elapsed and contemporaneous documents are scarce. In such circumstances, courts would mainly rely on objective facts, available documents and inherent probabilities, while also considering the circumstances and relationships between the parties.
[1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/word/vetted/other/en/2017/HCA000500_2017.docx
[2] Ibid
[3] HCA 500 and HCA 2104, §1.2
[4] Ibid, §1.3
[5] Ibid, §14.1
[6] Ibid, §3.2
[7] Ibid
[8] Ibid
[9] Ibid
[10] Ibid, §3.3
[11] Ibid, §3.4
[12] Ibid
[13] HCA 500 and HCA 2104, §3.6
[14] Ibid, §1.3
[15] Ibid, §1.4[16] Ibid, §1.6
[17] Ibid, §4.1
[18] Ibid, §4.2
[19] Ibid, §4.4-4.5
[20] Ibid, §5.2
[21] Ibid, §7.3
[22] Ibid
[23] Ibid
[24] Ibid, §12.2
[25] Ibid, §13.2
[26] Ibid, §13.3
[27] Ibid, §13.4
No comments:
Post a Comment