DCCJ 2772/2022

[2025] HKDC 1123

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 2772 OF 2022

---------------------------

---------------------------

----------------------

JUDGMENT

----------------------

A. Introduction

1. The plaintiff (“P”) commenced these proceedings seeking to enforce a written settlement agreement dated 28 April 2022 (the “Settlement Agreement”) against the defendant (“D”), who is a director and a 20% shareholder of a company known as Leader Best International Limited (“LBI”).

2. It is said that the Settlement Agreement was to resolve the dispute arising out of the early determination of the tenancy agreement (the “Tenancy Agreement”) in respect of the premises known as Shop 4 on the Ground Floor of Tuen Mun Centre, Nos 2, 4, 6 and 8 Wo Ping Path Nos 7-11, 15-25, 29, 33-35 Yan Chung Street, Tuen Mun (the “Premises”) as between P as the tenant and LBI as the landlord.

3. According to the Settlement Agreement, D was to pay a sum of HK$1,000,000 to P by 30 June 2022, failing which, D would have to also pay contractual interest at 8% per day. P however contends that the agreed contractual rate of interest is 0.8% per day instead.

4. P is therefore claiming against D for the sum of HK$1,000,000 together with contractual interest at 0.8% (ie a sum of HK$8,000) per day as from 1 July 2022, ie a total sum of HK$9,972,000 as at the date of the trial before me on 24 June 2025 with further interest at judgment rate on the said sum [1] .

5. D disputes that P is entitled to enforce the Settlement Agreement on the ground that (1) he only entered into the same under duress; (2) the terms thereunder were too vague; and (3) the same is void for want of consideration.

6. It appears that after the filing of witness statements, D has lost interest in defending the action. He did not attend the PTR on 16 April 2025.

7. The trial of these proceedings was fixed to be heard before me on 24 June 2025.

8. Despite D’s absence at the trial, I was satisfied on the affirmation of service filed by P that sufficient notice had been given to D of the trial. It was appropriate to proceed to hear the evidence of P as well as P’s submissions.

9. At the start of the trial, P’s counsel, ie Mr Sin, informed the Court that P’s claim together with contractual interest at the daily rate of 0.8% will be limited to HK$3,000,000 and he does not intend to claim any post-judgment interest.

B. Material Factual Background and The Parties’ Respective Cases

10. The relevant factual background can be briefly summarised as follows.

11. P is a merchant who operates a retail business of fresh meat products as a sole proprietor with the trade name of “Second Brother” (二師兄).

12. D is a director and a 20% shareholder of LBI.

13. On 19