Table of Contents
Case Background
On December 23, 2020, the Hong Kong High Court made a ruling on the financial dispute between Stephen Chow and his ex-girlfriend Yu Wenfeng, ruling that Yu Wenfeng lost the case and was required to pay Stephen Chow's litigation costs. The case involves Yu Wenfeng seeking dividends from Stephen Chow on multiple property investments, totaling up to HK$70 million, including profit dividends from the Peak mansion "Tianbi Gao" and the Beverly Hills property in Tai Po.
Yu Wenfeng's accusation
Yu Wenfeng claimed that she had assisted Stephen Chow in making a number of property and stock investments during their relationship, and that Stephen Chow had verbally promised to give her 10% of the investment profits as dividends. She believed that these promises were legally binding and therefore had been pursuing the repayment of the money for many years, with the total amount exceeding HK$80 million.
Stephen Chow's response
Stephen Chow countered that these so-called "promises" were just sweet talk during a relationship and were not legally binding. He stressed that these words were merely emotional expressions and not formal business agreements, and therefore should not be considered as legally binding commitments.
The court's ruling
In his verdict, Judge Gao Haowen pointed out that the key lies in whether the parties intend to transform these verbal promises into legally binding agreements. The judge held that these promises were made in an informal setting and the parties were in a romantic relationship at the time, and were more like sweet talk between lovers than a formal business agreement. In addition, the judge noted that the parties never translated these verbal promises into a written agreement, further weakening the legal effect of these promises.
The judge also believed that Yu Wenfeng was not the main person who facilitated Stephen Chow's investment in "The Timbih Gao" and Beverly Hills properties, and was unable to prove when Stephen Chow made the promise of 10% dividends. Therefore, the court ruled that Yu Wenfeng lost the case and was required to pay Stephen Chow's legal costs.
Yu Wenfeng's response
In an interview with the media after the verdict, Yu Wenfeng said she was disappointed with the decision, but was more worried about the spread of the epidemic. When asked whether she would appeal, she did not give a direct response, but only called on everyone to pay attention to epidemic prevention.
Stephen Chow's statement
Stephen Chow did not appear in court in person to receive the verdict, but instead issued a statement through his lawyer Siu Yat-fung. He expressed his gratitude for the media's attention and hoped that the ruling would bring the incident to an end. He also wished everyone a Merry Christmas, showing that he hoped the matter could be resolved as soon as possible and that he could return to a peaceful life.
Legal significance of the case
This case not only involves a huge financial dispute, but also involves the boundary between emotion and law. In his ruling, the judge made it clear that an oral promise could hardly be considered a legally binding contract in the absence of a formal written agreement. This ruling is of great reference value for similar emotional dispute cases, reminding the public that when it comes to monetary transactions, they should try to clarify the rights and obligations of both parties in writing to avoid future legal disputes.
Social response
This case has attracted widespread social attention not only because it involves two well-known figures, but also because it touches on the complex relationship between emotions and money. Many netizens expressed support for the verdict, believing that emotional commitment should not be easily transformed into legal responsibility. However, some people expressed sympathy for Wenfeng, believing that she had given a lot in this relationship and deserved corresponding rewards.
Summarize
The financial dispute case between Stephen Chow and Yu Wenfeng ended with Yu Wenfeng losing the case. This is not only a legal battle, but also a game of emotions and money. The judge's ruling emphasizes the importance of legal agreements and reminds the public to act with caution when it comes to monetary transactions and to avoid ignoring legal risks due to emotional factors. For Stephen Chow, this ruling may have put an end to the years-long dispute between him and Yu Wenfeng, but for the public, this case undoubtedly provides many legal and moral revelations worthy of deep thought.
This article analyzes in detail the financial dispute case between Stephen Chow and Yu Wenfeng, and comprehensively explores the legal significance and social impact of the case from the case background, the claims of both parties, the court's ruling to the social response. I hope this article can provide readers with a clear understanding and trigger in-depth thinking about similar cases.
Further reading:
