Table of Contents
[Legal Storm] The financial dispute between a couple that has been going on for more than a decade has finally caused a stir in the High Court. Movie superstar Stephen Chow and his ex-girlfriend Yu Wenfeng are in court over a sky-high profit-sharing agreement. After Yu lost the case for HK$80 million at the end of last year, the two sides' struggle over the legal costs order was again decided on the 3rd of this month. This 32-page judgment not only clarifies the sharing of millions of legal fees, but also reveals the secrets of offense and defense in the judicial process.
Case context: From the promise of a luxury house to a court showdown
This 12-year legal battle began with a breakup in 2010. Yu Wenfeng has been assisting Stephen Chow in managing his assets as an "investment consultant" since 2002, with key projects including:
- Redevelopment of the luxury residential building "Tianbigao" on Polo Road, The Peak (currently valued at over HK$2 billion)
- 3 detached houses in Beverly Hill, Tai Po
- Multi-fund investment portfolio
The key dispute is the conversation on Christmas Eve in 2002 - Yu claimed that Zhou verbally promised to give him 10% of investment profit as compensation, but Zhou refuted that this was just "love talk" and stressed that the two parties had never signed a formal agreement. The High Court ruled last year that the oral agreement lacked legal effect, mainly based on three pieces of hard evidence:
● Business practice: 10% dividends but zero risk is unreasonable
● Contradictory evidence: Yu claims to be a professional investor but has no written records
● Nature of the relationship: financial transactions mixed with personal gifts
Ten million litigation battle: lawyers' fees become the focus
After losing the main case, Yu Wenfeng had to bear Stephen Chow's legal expenses, but the two sides started a second round of confrontation over the scope of "reasonable legal expenses". According to the latest judgment, the disputes are concentrated in three major areas:
【Barrister Fees】
● Zhou Fang used Queen's Counsel Man-lai (now a High Court judge) and senior barrister Ho Pui-him
● Yu Fangyuan opposes the "double lawyer" configuration as an overly defensive
● Key turning point: The judge approved the full recognition of the
Evidence preparation fee
● Zhou Fang’s claim for the cost of retrieving the “middleman’s notes” was approved
→ Judge ruled: Although no witnesses were called, the documents were relevant to the case
● The property valuation fee of "Tianbigao" was rejected
→ Reasons for the ruling: Zhou’s decision to abandon the disputed valuation only at the trial was a waste of money
Procedural dispute fees
● Yu Fang successfully eliminated the costs related to Zhou's request for "aggravated compensation"
● Zhou Fang was allowed to recover the additional costs of delaying the trial
According to estimates by industry insiders, the cumulative litigation costs of this case may exceed HK$20 million, of which the barrister team's hourly wage may reach HK$30,000, and the cost of a single pre-trial meeting is equivalent to the monthly income of a middle-class family.
Judicial opinion: The boundary between love words and contracts
In his verdict, the presiding judge, Howard Ko, reiterated the principles of contract law, emphasizing that "the court is not a notary office for love." In relation to the crucial 2002 Christmas promise, the judgment established a three-tiered analysis:
- Intention test
- Need to prove that both parties have the "intention to establish a legal relationship"
- Was Zhou serious when he said, "I will share all the money I make with you"? - Consideration relationship test
- Does the investment advice claimed constitute valid consideration?
- The judge pointed out that many services fall within the scope of "girlfriend's duties" - Commercial rationale assessment
- Risk-free dividends violate the principle of "risk-return proportionality"
- Failed to prove his contribution was worth 80 million
It is worth noting that the judgment specifically cited the authoritative British case Balfour v Balfour (1919) to establish the principle that "family agreements are presumed to be non-binding". This move sets an important precedent for future financial disputes between couples.
The court documents reveal the subtle competition between the two parties in terms of their evidentiary strategies:
● Zhou Fang’s trump card
- Presenting multiple records of "grants" from 2003 to 2010 (totaling over 20 million)
- Summon the Zhou family driver to testify that "Ms. Yu never visited the construction site"
- Expert witness analysis shows that investment decisions were actually led by Zhou
● Yu Fang Raid
- Submit a handwritten note from Zhou saying "Thank you for helping me make money"
- Find a former assistant to prove that "Zhou called Yu a partner"
- Tried to combine the Beverly Hills transaction with the Skyhigh
The most dramatic scene was when Stephen Chow appeared in court in person and was questioned by lawyer Yu Fang: "You said you would support her for life, isn't that a promise?" Chow calmly responded: "Those are what a man says in bed." This remark caused a commotion in the audience and became media headlines.
Case Number: HCA1243
Further reading:
