In the case of In-Sight Limited vs Juheng Chen and Yujun Ying, the Appeals Court addressed issues stemming from an appeal lodged by In-Sight Limited (the Plaintiff), against two significant decrees issued by the First Hall Civil Court.
The first concerned the expungement of affidavits that were central to the Plaintiff’s claims, while the second rejected the Plaintiff’s claims for commission payments and damages related to property sales in Cyprus.
In-Sight Limited, an international real estate agency operating under the name Property Line International, forged an agreement with Juheng Chen, who acted as a property negotiator and translator. The Plaintiff contended they had established a commission agreement allowing Chen to help facilitate property sales. However, problems arose when it was discovered that Chen had concluded sales without informing the Plaintiff, leading to accusations of misrepresentation and misappropriation of commission.
The Plaintiff sought the court’s declarations regarding their entitlement to commissions from various property sales in Cyprus and compensation for damages suffered due to Chen’s alleged misconduct. Conversely, the defence denied the claims, asserting that there was no exclusive arrangement preventing them from negotiating the sales on their own initiative.
The First Hall Civil Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims, concluding that they failed to convincingly establish that Chen’s actions produced the sales resulting in commission. The court emphasised that the evidence presented lacked the necessary credibility.
The appeal raised two primary grievances: The First Court’s decision to expunge the affidavits of Jian Ye and Haiying Li; and the incorrect evaluation of evidence which led to the rejection of the Plaintiff’s claims.
In addressing these grievances, the Appeals Court conducted a thorough review of procedural and evidentiary standards.
On the matter of the affidavits, the Court of Appeal noted that the First Court’s decision was rooted in procedural lapses by the Plaintiff since they did not formally indicate the intention to present evidence via affidavit.
The legal framework stipulated under Article 622A of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure highlights that affidavits from abroad are admissible only if conditions for cross-examination are met. The Appeals Court quoted from the judgement Simon Bezzina et vs Le Beau Chapps, decided on 12 July 2019. Here the Court had held that although the law does not specify how the cross examination may take place, the law provides for letters rogatory.
As the Plaintiff failed to comply with these procedural requirements, the Court ruled that the expungement of the affidavits was justified, effectively supporting the First Court’s reasoning.
Regarding the second grievance, the Court of Appeal reiterated the importance of credibility in evaluating competing accounts. The First Court had observed significant inconsistencies in the Plaintiff’s version of events, particularly concerning the lack of substantive, credible evidence linking the commissionable sales to their agency efforts.
The Appellant’s failure to provide authenticated deeds of sale and reliance on generalised claims undermined their appeal. The Court highlighted that the presence of a conflict in testimony, particularly involving Dai Lingyun, further complicated the credibility issues.
The Appeals Court found that the Plaintiff did not sufficiently establish a right to the commissions claimed and affirmed the First Court’s decision.
Ultimately, the appeal was rejected in its entirety, upholding the judgement of the First Hall Civil Court and allocating costs to the Appellant.
This case serves as an important reminder for legal practitioners in Malta and beyond regarding the necessity of meticulous attention to procedural details, especially when dealing with foreign witnesses and the submission of documentation in support of claims. The implications of this judgement underscore the need for real estate and commercial professionals to ensure robust compliance with legal protocols to safeguard their interests in contractual disputes.
Av. Malcolm Mifsud
Founding Partner
Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates
This article may also be accessed on MaltaToday.
For more information you can contact one of our Team Members at Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates.
