Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Chan Hoi-lam, the plaintiff, asks for HK$12,000 from Leung Ka-fai, the defendant. The dispute concerns a banquet booking deposit paid by Hoi-lam and a later refund paid into Ka-fai’s account after the booking was cancelled. The parties agree that Ka-fai received the refund. They disagree about who was entitled to keep it and whether Ka-fai promised to repay it. 2. The hearing record includes a banquet deposit receipt and a venue refund confirmation. It also includes the parties’ submissions and a saved client account relayed by counsel. That client account is not an independently verified document or admitted witness testimony. The WhatsApp exchange described by Hoi-lam was not presented. Both parties were invited to make final submissions, and the record contains their responses. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Hoi-lam proved an entitlement to all or part of the HK$12,000 refund, and whether she proved that Ka-fai separately promised to repay it. Under Rule 1, the party asking for relief must support the request with facts, records, or testimony. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than to vague accounts. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match the harm proved. Rule 8 confirms that an accusation alone is not proof. Submissions of the parties 4. Hoi-lam says she paid the deposit from her own account, that the venue refunded it to Ka-fai because the booking was in his name, and that the parties never agreed to divide this refund. She says Ka-fai promised to send it back and that his words “sort it out” meant he would return the money. She asks for the full HK$12,000 and has described the conduct as fraud. 5. Ka-fai accepts that Hoi-lam paid the deposit and that the refund went into his account. He says the parties generally shared wedding costs, but he does not identify a specific agreement about this deposit or refund. He says “sort it out” meant dealing with the refund, not promising to pay Hoi-lam the full amount. He asks that the full claim be denied or limited to an amount the evidence supports. Evidence and findings 6. The receipt, exhibit-5-e1, clearly identifies Hoi-lam as the payer of the HK$12,000 banquet deposit. The refund confirmation, exhibit-6-e2, establishes that the venue refunded HK$12,000 to Ka-fai’s account. The parties do not dispute these basic facts. The receipt does not state whether the couple shared the cost, and the refund confirmation does not state who was entitled to keep the refund. 7. Hoi-lam’s saved client account, exhibit-5-client-statement:3, says that she paid the deposit, that the refund went to Ka-fai after separation, that he promised to send it back, and that the parties never agreed to divide this refund. This is an attributed account and is relevant, but it is not an independent record or admitted testimony. The submissions repeat these points but do not themselves prove them. Ka-fai’s account that wedding costs were generally shared is also a submission, not a specific record establishing how this deposit was treated. 8. The WhatsApp exchange is not in evidence. The record therefore does not permit the court to assess its exact wording, surrounding messages, timing, or context. Ka-fai acknowledges using “sort it out,” but the phrase, without the exchange, does not establish that he promised to repay the whole refund. Hoi-lam’s assertion that the phrase could only mean full repayment is not supported by the missing context. The court does not treat the exchange as a presented exhibit or assume what it says. Reasons 9. On refund entitlement, Hoi-lam has proved that she paid the deposit. That is important evidence in her favor, and Ka-fai does not dispute it. But proof of payment alone does not resolve whether the parties treated the banquet expense as shared or agreed that the refund would be divided or returned in a particular way. The receipt is silent on that question. The refund confirmation proves receipt by Ka-fai, not his entitlement to keep the money or Hoi-lam’s entitlement to all of it. 10. Hoi-lam bears the burden of proving the amount she asks the court to order. Her account that there was no agreement to divide the refund is relevant, but the record contains no independent evidence of the parties’ arrangement. Ka-fai’s general statement that wedding costs were shared is likewise not proof that this particular refund was shared. The court therefore does not find that the parties agreed to share this refund, nor does it find that Ka-fai was entitled to keep it. The decisive point is that the available evidence does not establish a specific amount owed to Hoi-lam. Under Rules 1, 2, and 6, the claim for the full HK$12,000 is not proved, and there is no reliable basis for calculating a smaller award. 11. On the alleged repayment promise, Hoi-lam relies on her account and on Ka-fai’s acknowledgment that he said “sort it out.” The phrase supports that he agreed to address the refund in some way, but the exchange and its context are unavailable. It does not, by itself, establish a promise to pay Hoi-lam the entire HK$12,000. The receipt proves the original payment, not a later promise. Applying Rules 1, 2, and 8, Hoi-lam has not proved a separate promise or its scope. 12. Hoi-lam’s use of the word “fraud” does not change the result. The record establishes receipt of the refund and a dispute about the parties’ arrangement, but it does not establish deception. No separate finding of fraud is warranted. Ka-fai’s request to deny or reduce the claim is addressed by denying it: the evidence does not support a reliable partial amount either. This is not a finding that Ka-fai proved a right to retain the refund; it is the consequence of Hoi-lam not meeting her burden. Final order 13. The plaintiff’s claim for HK$12,000 is denied. No payment is ordered from Leung Ka-fai to Chan Hoi-lam. No partial award is made because the record does not establish a reliable amount due. The court makes no finding that the parties agreed to share the refund, and no finding of fraud. This judgment resolves only the claim on the evidence presented in this hearing.