Table of Contents
The financial dispute between movie star Stephen Chow and his ex-girlfriend Yu Wenfeng has once again become the focus of public attention. Yu Wenfeng demanded from Stephen Chow the 10% dividends involving investment projects such as the luxury home "Tianbihgao", amounting to 80 million yuan. However, the High Court ruled at the end of last year that Yu Wenfeng lost the case, believing that the profit-sharing agreement between the two was just a daily conversation between lovers and had no legal effect. Yu Wenfeng was dissatisfied with the verdict and filed an appeal, but the Court of Appeal rejected her appeal today (7th) and stated that it will issue a judgment in the future to explain in detail the reasons for the rejection.
Case Background
Yu Wenfeng and Stephen Chow had a 13-year relationship. During that period, Yu Wenfeng was not only Stephen Chow's girlfriend, but also his financial advisor, assisting him in handling various investments. Yu Wenfeng claimed that Stephen Chow verbally promised her in 2002 to share the profits of 10% from the property and stock investments she recommended. These investments include the Peak luxury residence "The Peak", three detached houses with parking spaces in Beverly Hill, Tai Po, and some investment funds. Yu Wenfeng therefore asked Stephen Chow to pay her 10% of the profits, totaling more than 80 million yuan.
The original judgment
In the original trial last year, a High Court judge ruled that Yu Wenfeng lost the case. The judge believed that Stephen Chow’s promise was merely a gift between lovers and did not constitute a legally binding agreement. The judge noted that the conversation between the two was more like everyday communication between a couple than a formal business agreement. In addition, the judge also believed that Stephen Chow's main purpose of purchasing House No. 12 of "The Sky" was for his own residence rather than investment, so Yu Wenfeng had no right to ask for dividends.
Court of Appeal
Yu Wenfeng was dissatisfied with the original judgment and filed an appeal. During the hearing in the Court of Appeal, Yu Wenfeng's representative lawyer emphasized that although the two were in a relationship at the time, Yu Wenfeng was also Stephen Chow's business partner, assisting him in handling many investment matters. The lawyer pointed out that the two people intentionally entered into legally binding agreements during the period in question, and that these agreements were based on a business partnership rather than simply gifts between lovers.
Yu Wenfeng's lawyer also pointed out that regardless of whether House No. 12 of "Tianbihgao" is used for self-residence, as long as the property appreciates in value, Stephen Chow should pay 10% of the profits to Yu Wenfeng in accordance with the agreement. The lawyer emphasized that the oral agreement between the two was legally binding, and that Yu Wenfeng had devoted a lot of time and energy in the investment process and should receive corresponding returns.
Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal
After hearing arguments from both parties, the three judges of the Court of Appeal decided to dismiss Yu Wenfeng's appeal today. The judge said he would issue a detailed judgment later to explain the reasons for dismissing the appeal. Although the verdict has not yet been announced, judging from the original judgment, the Court of Appeal may still believe that the agreement between the two lacks sufficient legal basis and is more based on a romantic relationship rather than a business cooperation.
Legal Analysis
The central issue in this case is whether a verbal agreement between the two persons is legally binding. Under Hong Kong contract law, oral agreements can theoretically be legally enforceable, but only if both parties have a clear intention to enter into a legally binding agreement. In this case, the original trial judge believed that Stephen Chow's promise was more of a gift between lovers rather than a formal business agreement, and therefore had no legal effect.
In addition, the judge also took into account that Stephen Chow's main purpose of purchasing House No. 12 of "The Sky" was for his own use rather than investment. This means that even if the property appreciates in value, Stephen Chow is not obligated to share the profits with Yu Wenfeng. The Court of Appeal may have dismissed Yu Wenfeng’s appeal on similar grounds.
Social reaction
The case not only involved a private dispute between two celebrities, but also sparked widespread public discussion about financial agreements between couples. Many netizens believe that financial agreements between couples should be clearly established in writing to avoid future disputes. Some netizens also said that Yu Wenfeng put in a lot of effort in the investment process and should get corresponding returns, but it may be difficult to support her claim legally.
in conclusion
Yu Wenfeng's case of recovering 80 million yuan in dividends from Stephen Chow ended with the Court of Appeal dismissing the appeal. This case not only reveals the legal complexity of financial agreements between couples, but also reminds the public to act with caution when dealing with financial issues to avoid unnecessary disputes caused by verbal agreements. Although Yu Wenfeng put in a lot of effort in the investment process, it may be difficult to support her claim legally. In the future, the judgment of this case will further reveal the specific reasoning of the Court of Appeal and provide reference for similar cases.
Case details and legal disputes
- Legal effect of oral agreements
In this case, Yu Wenfeng claimed that there was a verbal agreement between her and Stephen Chow, stipulating that she could obtain 10% of the profits from the investment project. However, Hong Kong law has certain requirements for the validity of oral agreements. Under the Contract Law, oral agreements are theoretically valid, but the following conditions must be met:
- Intent to create a legal relationship: There must be a clear intention between the parties to enter into a legally binding agreement. If the agreement is merely a daily conversation or gift between a couple, it will not be legally binding.
- Clear Terms: The terms of the agreement must be clear enough to be enforced by a court.
- Consideration: An agreement must involve consideration, meaning both parties must provide some form of value in exchange.
In this case, the original trial judge believed that Stephen Chow's promise was more of a gift between lovers rather than a formal business agreement, and therefore had no legal effect. The Court of Appeal may have dismissed Yu Wenfeng’s appeal on similar grounds.
- Nature of investment project
Another key issue is that Stephen Chow’s main purpose in purchasing House No. 12 in “The Skyway” was for his own use rather than investment. According to the original trial judge's ruling, if the main purpose of the property is self-residence, then even if the property appreciates in value, Stephen Chow has no obligation to share the profits with Yu Wenfeng. This means that even if there is a verbal agreement between two persons, that agreement may not apply to owner-occupied properties.
- Financial Agreement Between Couples
The case also sparked widespread public discussion about financial agreements between couples. Many legal experts point out that financial agreements between couples should be clearly established in writing to avoid disputes in the future. A written agreement not only clarifies the rights and obligations of both parties, but also provides strong evidence in legal disputes.
- Business partner relationship
Yu Wenfeng claims that she and Stephen Chow are not only a couple, but also business partners. She said that she had assisted Stephen Chow in handling many investment matters and should receive corresponding returns. However, the original trial judge believed that the relationship between the two was more based on a romantic relationship rather than a formal business partnership. This means that even if Yu Wenfeng put in a lot of effort in the investment process, it may be difficult to support her claim legally.
- The Court of Appeal’s decision
The Court of Appeal dismissed Yu Wenfeng’s appeal, possibly based on the following reasons:
- Lack of legal basis: The Court of Appeal may hold that the verbal agreement between the two persons lacks sufficient legal basis and is based more on a romantic relationship than a business partnership.
- Property use: The Court of Appeal may agree with the original trial judge's view that the main purpose of House No. 12 "Tianbihgao" is for self-residence rather than investment, and therefore Yu Wenfeng has no right to claim dividends.
- Insufficient evidence: The Court of Appeal may consider that the evidence provided by Yu Wenfeng is insufficient to prove the existence of a legally binding agreement between the two.
- Future Impact
The verdict of this case will have an important impact on similar cases in the future. First, it reminds the public to be cautious when dealing with financial issues between couples to avoid unnecessary disputes caused by verbal agreements. Second, it highlights the importance of written agreements, especially when large financial transactions are involved. Finally, it reveals the courts’ cautious attitude when dealing with financial disputes between couples, often requiring clear evidence to support the legal effect of the agreement.
Summarize
Yu Wenfeng's case of recovering 80 million yuan in dividends from Stephen Chow ended with the Court of Appeal dismissing the appeal. This case not only reveals the legal complexity of financial agreements between couples, but also reminds the public to act with caution when dealing with financial issues to avoid unnecessary disputes caused by verbal agreements. Although Yu Wenfeng put in a lot of effort in the investment process, it may be difficult to support her claim legally. In the future, the judgment of this case will further reveal the specific reasoning of the Court of Appeal and provide reference for similar cases.
Further reading:
