|
Koo Siu Ying says the HK$574 million at issue in the case was a gift from Lim
Por-yen, whom she lived with for 46 years until 2002
Two experts on Chinese custom law should be flown to Hong Kong first class from
London to give evidence in a long-running HK$1 billion concubine case, a senior
judge has suggested.
"They should be flown out first-class and put up at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel
because this would not be a great hardship in comparison with the amount of
money involved in the case,'' Michael Stuart-Moore told the Court of Appeal.
At issue was whether Koo Siu Ying can claim status as the "third wife'' of
billionaire clothing-to-property tycoon Lim Por-yen, the 88-year-old founder
and chairman of the Lai Sun Group.
Koo lived with Lim for 46 years and had two children with him, but they parted
in 2002.
Lim is suing Koo for the return of what he says was a HK$574 million loan, which
with interest he claims totals HK$1,071 million. Koo is refusing to give the
money back because she says it was a gift.
The legal battle has been underway for more than two years, but was sidetracked
by Koo's status. Lim objected to her describing herself as his third wife.
"She's obviously not a wife in the Western sense,'' Justice Stuart-Moore said
Tuesday. "She's probably not a wife in the Chinese sense. She may be a
concubine in the Chinese sense. We need proper evidence on this and what the
obligations are to a concubine.
"My understanding of a concubine is someone who joins a household and
understands they will be looked after for the rest of their lives.
"The question of whether a husband should look after a concubine is one which
needs to be determined.''
At a lower court hearing, Lim succeeded in stopping Koo from calling herself his
third wife. But at Tuesday's appeal, Justices Stuart-Moore and Doreen le Pichon
ruled that she could continue to use the term - as long as she also now seeks
status as a concubine.
The main action involves what Lim insists were a set of loans totalling HK$574
million given to Koo between 1994 and 2001 to fund the Gees Building, a luxury
property in Shanghai. He demanded the money back after he left her in 2002.
According to Lim, the money was only ever a loan to Koo and Highfit Development
Limited, a company controlled by Koo and their daughter Pear Ling Ming-chu.
In addition to a refund of the original loan, Lim is also demanding payment of
interest of around HK$497 million.
Koo has claimed she was going to leave Asia for Europe or North America but Lim
persuaded her to stay and gave her the money as a gift to purchase and develop
the Shanghai property.
Although the status of concubines in Hong Kong was curbed in 1971 - new legal
concubines were barred after that date - existing minor wives retained some
legal rights under traditional Chinese custom law, the Court of Appeal heard.
Stuart-Moore told Lim's barrister Roger Beresford: "If your client goes around
calling her a wife from 1956 to 2002, I have very little sympathy for him when
he complains about it appearing in the pleadings [in Koo's defence against
returning the money]. He's had two children by her and then in 2002 he clears
off.''
Stuart-Moore said he thought the evidence of experts in Chinese custom law could
be helpful in the main case between Lim and Koo and recommended that two
specialists, professors Michael Palmer and Anthony Dicks of London's School of
Oriental and African Studies, be asked to come to Hong Kong give evidence.
At an earlier stage in the legal battle over Koo's status, the Court of First
Instance had ruled out an examination of Chinese custom law because it would
"involve trouble, expense and delay''. The "real issue'', said that court, was
whether Lim's money was a loan or a gift under contract law.
Justice Gerard Muttrie said: "There is no magic in a marriage, in whatever
tradition it may have been contracted. There are men who, having vowed in a
Church of England marriage ceremony `With all my worldly goods I thee endow',
or its modern equivalent, will not give their wives a cent. There are men who
will give their mistresses a fortune and never expect it back. No doubt the
same applies in all cultures.''
No date has been set for a continuation of the case.
|
