Chow v Yang

Chow, the appellant, appealed against the decision of the District Court in relation to a contractual dispute with Yang, the respondent, regarding the purchase of a supermarket business. The central issue was whether the transfer of the business was ever effected, with both parties agreeing that the consideration had failed. The trial involved determining the extent of the depletion of stock and the amount owed to suppliers during the intervening period. The District Court Judge did not award interest and the appellant questioned whether the Judge's reasons regarding the respondent’s credit were indicative of an error, as well as whether the findings on stock depletion and unpaid suppliers could be sustained. Furthermore, the appellant argued that the Judge erred in assessing the credibility of the respondent's evidence and in declining to award interest. The appeal focused on the appellate court's role in reviewing the Judge's findings of fact, especially those based on the credibility of witnesses.

The Court considered the general principles governing appellate review, emphasizing that the appellate court should not interfere with a Judge's findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong or no reasonable Judge could have made them. The Court scrutinised whether the Judge's reasons for crediting the respondent's evidence and for not awarding interest were justifiable. In this case, the Court found that the Judge's reasons regarding the respondent’s credit were not plainly wrong, but there was an error in not awarding interest. The Court determined that an appropriate rate for interest was five percent and fixed a lump sum of $25,000.00, considering the entire period.

The Court concluded that Chow was entitled to judgment in the sum awarded, including interest, effective from the date the District Court Judge entered judgment. The Court ordered that any unpaid amount thereafter should incur interest according to the Rules of Court. The Court also directed that the parties be heard regarding costs. Vanstone J concurred with the proposed orders and reasons provided by Nyland J and Gray J.