HONG KONG—Actress Cecilia Cheung, one of Asia’s most recognizable stars, concluded her testimony Tuesday in a high-profile contractual dispute, fiercely challenging claims by her former manager regarding a nearly HK$2.8 million deposit and unfulfilled film obligations. Testifying over two days at the High Court, Cheung appeared emotionally charged at times, defending her professional integrity against accusations of non-compliance and financial need.
The civil case pits Cheung against her former manager, Yu Yuk Hing, and his company, Aeg Entertainment Group Limited, over an alleged breach of an agreement concerning two proposed film projects dating back to 2012.
Dispute Over Advance Payment and Film Quality
During cross-examination by the plaintiff’s counsel, Alan Tang, the immediate focus was the status of a HK$2.76 million deposit. The prosecution presented evidence of a contract, the “Cecilia Cheung Two Film Agreement,” signed in May 2012, which allegedly required Yu to pay the sum within three days. A check for that amount was entered as evidence.
Cheung, represented by barrister Ricky Lam, emphatically denied ever receiving the payment, asserting that without the films being produced, there was no basis for her to keep any money. “How could I accept the money when the film was never made?” she asked, maintaining that no debt was owed to Yu.
The plaintiff further questioned Cheung’s motivation, suggesting through an email exchange between Yu and Cheung’s assistant that the actress was experiencing financial difficulties and urgently required the advance. Cheung refuted this suggestion, arguing, “From the start of my career until now, every job I do shows I need to earn money every day,” denying any specific need for urgent funding at the time.
The issue of film quality also surfaced, with the plaintiff’s counsel citing an email from Cheung’s assistant stating the actress would only accept projects that met strict standards, reportedly indicating she “didn’t want to be the ‘Rotten Film Queen’ anymore.”
Clash Over Box Office Success and Alleged Provocation
The courtroom heated up when Yu’s legal team pressed Cheung on past media reports of her films performing poorly at the box office. When asked if she had starred in films that suffered poor box office returns, Cheung challenged the definition of “box office failure.”
“What constitutes a box office failure? My mother thought it was wonderful,” she retorted, adding, “It is very difficult to answer such provocative questions.” The judge, Ouyang Ho Wing, intervened when Cheung questioned the impartiality of the plaintiff’s reliance on media reports, asking, “Is the press your relative?”
Cheung further insisted that her refusal to proceed with the films stemmed from the projects failing to meet artistic standards. She stressed that a “film is not just a contract,” emphasizing that essential elements—including script, director, lead actors, and lighting—must be satisfactory before she commits.
The plaintiff also brought up Cheung’s non-participation in the television program, Goddess’ Outfit, which the actress confirmed, noting that her withdrawal had resulted in a personal loss of RMB 7 million. When asked if the program organizers had pursued legal action against her, Cheung denied it, claiming, “They are pursuing someone else.”
Following her testimony, Cheung left the court premises in a private car, declining to speak to reporters. The trial continues as the court examines the complex financial and artistic obligations central to the dispute between the former professional associates.
Leave a Reply