As the old adage goes “less is more”

Ronald and Aria recently acted for the plaintiff in Imperial Pacific International (CNMI), LLC v Chan Chi Hung, [2026] HKCFI 1483, a six-day High Court trial before DHCJ Andrew Li arising from a dispute involving US$1.5 million in casino debt owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff operated a casino on the Pacific island of Saipan. The defendant visited the casino in October 2016, borrowed, gambled and lost US$1.5 million over the course of a few days. The loan was carefully documented through a loan agreement, rebate programme form, promissory note and multiple acknowledgement slips.

Despite the contemporaneous records, the defendant refused to pay and advanced a multitude of defences, which the learned Deputy Judge described as “at least seven distinct defences can be found, some of which are internally inconsistent with each other, both legally and factually”. These ranged from non est factum to mistake, from gift to illegality.

The trial was further bogged down by procedural skirmishing: the parties’ inability to agree on a joint list of issues and undisputed facts despite explicit directions, and last‑minute applications shortly before trial.

Interestingly, although the defendant pleaded that the loan was illegal under CNMI law (the law governing Saipan), he elected not to adduce any expert evidence at trial, even though the plaintiff did. The Deputy Judge held that, as a result of that election, it was not open to the defendant to challenge the loan on that basis.

After trial, the learned Deputy Judge found in favour of the plaintiff and accepted the submission that the proceedings “were an exercise of futility and only serve to waste the parties’ time and costs”, awarding indemnity costs against the defendant.

Apart from the trial, Ronald also acted in the plaintiff’s earlier summary judgment and VCF applications, reported at [2025] HKCFI 1512, while Aria acted for the plaintiff at a security for costs hearing and on the defendant’s application to adduce further evidence, reported at [2025] HKCFI 1511.

The case is a reminder that the mere fact that a cause of action or defence can be pleaded does not mean it should be pursued. Parties must consider the factual background and internal consistency of their positions. A laissez‑faireapproach to pleadings and case theory may well result in indemnity costs.

Full judgment is available here.

To explore more about Ronald and Aria, please visit here.