UKICHI WADA v. KIM YUNG MEE

HCA 22127/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 22127 OF 1998

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

1. The plaintiff is a businessman living and working in Japan. The plaintiff's claim in this action is for the repayment of monies lent to the defendant, whom the plaintiff described as a friend, and for interest on those sums. Between 22 July 1993 and 17 October 1994 the plaintiff on various dates lent the defendant various sums of money, totaling ￥49,339,710.

2. The plaintiff who gave evidence produced the documents in support of his case that all the sums were lent to the defendant. In some instances, interest was agreed to be paid at a fixed rate together with default interest at a higher rate.

3. The defendant has not appeared and has not given evidence at the trial. The defence that has been served in this action raises a number of defences :

(1) that the various sums were given by the plaintiff as a gift and alternatively, for her own use or benefit;

(2) that the said sums were given to the defendant as recompense for her services as a paramour;

(3) that the defendant signed the documents in relation to the loans in reliance on the false representation made to her by the plaintiff that the documents could have no legal effect;

(4) that the defendant signed the documents in reliance on the false representation that the plaintiff would leave her ￥50 million in his will;

(5) that as the documents were in the Japanese language the defendant did not understand Japanese and never intended the said documents to have any legal effect; and

(6) that there is an estoppel raised against the plaintiff by reason of the pleaded representations.

4. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defendant in support of the defences raised. The plaintiff has denied all of her allegations and I believe him. I find that the plaintiff is a truthful and reliable witness and I have no hesitation in accepting his evidence. The documentary evidence overwhelmingly supports his case. I also accept, as the plaintiff said, that the defendant well understands the Japanese language as she has acted for him as a Japanese interpreter in his business dealings. It is also to be observed that on at least two occasions, the documents evidencing the loans from the plaintiff to the defendant were executed at the law offices of the Doko Law Firm in Osaka, Japan where the defendant signed those documents. None of the defences raised have been made out. There is no merit in the defences raised and I reject the same.

5. I am satisfied that the plaintiff has proved his case and that he is entitled to judgment for repayment of the sums lent. I am also satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled to interest as pleaded in Schedule 2 of the statement of claim in respect of some of the loans where interest has been agreed at either a fixed sum or at a specified rate together with default interest as specified in the relevant documents. Where no rate of interest is specified for some of the loans, I am satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 1% above prime rate per annum from due date until judgment.

6. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted to me a table setting out all the amounts claimed including interest and I am satisfied that this correctly reflects the amounts that the plaintiff is entitled to. I therefore give judgment to the plaintiff against the defendant for the sums of ￥49,339,710 and ￥36,011,132.88 together with interest of ￥33,410,022.70 for the period from issue of the writ to the date hereof together with interest at judgment rate from the date hereof until the date of payment or the Hong Kong dollar equivalent at the time of payment. I also give judgment to the plaintiff for costs to be taxed. I also make an order that the amount of security for costs in the sum of $50,000 paid into court on 13 December 2000 by the plaintiff be paid out to the plaintiff with accrued interest if any.