Yau v Cheung

The appeal in *Yau v Cheung* concerned the interpretation of a written contract and the admissibility of parol evidence to add to its terms. The dispute arose between the parties to this written agreement.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the written contract represented the entirety of the agreement between the parties, or if extrinsic evidence could be admitted to supplement or vary its terms. This involved considering the scope and effect of the written document.

The Court of Appeal applied established principles of contract interpretation, particularly the parol evidence rule. The Court reasoned that where a written contract appears on its face to be a complete and final expression of the parties' agreement, it is presumed to be so. In such circumstances, extrinsic evidence is generally inadmissible to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of the written contract. The Court found that the written contract in this instance was intended by the parties to be a complete record of their agreement, and therefore, the parol evidence sought to be introduced was inadmissible.

The appeal was dismissed.