Hong Kong – Prominent actress Cecilia Cheung continued her testimony today, June 8, in the High Court, becoming visibly emotional under cross-examination during the breach of contract lawsuit filed against her by her former manager, Yu Yuk-hing, and AEG Entertainment Group Limited. Cheung, who stated she had endured “two days of torment” and sleepless nights, contested the fairness of media reporting while grappling with detailed questions about various agreements, leading the judge to offer a brief recess.
The complex legal dispute centers on the contractual period and scope of management agreements between the actress and the plaintiffs. During the intense second day of witness cross-examination by counsel for the plaintiff, Tim Tang, the court examined an eight-year management contract signed in July 2011 between Cheung and New Asia Entertainment Alliance Group, which included her signature and a fingerprint impression. This agreement reportedly outlined intentions to establish the “Cecilia Cheung Studio.”
A subsequent agreement, the “Cecilia Cheung Studio Collaboration Agreement,” was signed in May 2012 with Yu, who founded the studio and held a shareholder stake alongside Cheung.
Under questioning, Cheung maintained that her assistant, Chau Ching-yee, handled all administrative matters, and she would simply sign documents based on her assistant’s approval. While acknowledging the validity of the contract bearing her fingerprint, Cheung insisted she was filming in mainland China at the time of signing and found the clause regarding the establishment of a personal studio peculiar, noting that establishing such private entities was uncommon for mainland actors then.
A significant point of contention involved two versions of the studio collaboration agreement presented to the court. The plaintiffs’ version included a clause referencing the agreements being “on the basis of signing a global exclusive management contract,” a sentence absent from the version provided by Cheung’s legal team. When asked to explain the discrepancy, Cheung alleged that Yu had presented fraudulent contracts and documents, stating “everything is fake,” which necessitated the involvement of handwriting experts.
Justice O’Yang Ho-wang questioned Cheung regarding the ownership structure of her studio, noting that while New Asia Entertainment was initially linked to its formation, it later held no stake. Cheung responded that she and her assistant may have been “inadvertently deceived by opportunists,” asserting her belief that she remained an artist under New Asia Entertainment.
The cross-examination heavily focused on intricate deal terms and tax filing details, prompting Cheung to repeatedly state her lack of knowledge, explaining that she needed to focus on filming and delegated such matters to accountants and lawyers, often working in environments where mobile phone use was prohibited.
Visibly distressed, Cheung tearfully recounted sleepless nights spent reviewing lawsuit documents, indicating she had memorized the names of the law firms involved. She turned to the press area, expressing intense pressure from the media and reiterating her wish for reporters not to “casually write stories” about the proceedings.
Legal proceedings concerning highly publicized disputes often scrutinize the separation of administrative duties and artistic roles, particularly for high-profile talent who rely heavily on trusted management and staff. The continuation of this trial highlights the legal complexities associated with celebrity management contracts and the critical importance of due diligence in signing commercial agreements, regardless of an artist’s status. The court case is expected to resume as detailed examination of the contractual evidence continues.
