Construction project faced unwarranted claims; lawyer defeated frivolous litigant in court
In March 2010, Huang's elder brother, Huang Da, once told Huang that he was unable to complete a certain real estate project contracted from Construction Company A, and asked Huang to finish the remaining part of the project on his behalf. Huang went to great lengths and finally completed the aforementioned project. However, in 2013, he was sued in court by Pan, a self-employed individual who had provided excavator services to Huang Da in 2008, demanding payment of 245,000 yuan in project fees that Huang Da had owed, and naming Huang Da, Construction Company A, and other related parties as defendants. Feeling extremely frustrated, Huang had no choice but to entrust the legal team of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm to represent him in the case. After assignment, lawyer Zhang Qingping was responsible for handling this case specifically.
After an initial review of the case files, Attorney Zhang Qingping concluded that the materials indicated no direct connection between Pan and Huang, whether in terms of common sense or legal principles. Moreover, since the debt had allegedly existed for several years, why was it only now being brought up? After consulting with fellow attorneys at Zhiming Law Firm, Attorney Zhang Qingping analyzed that this case might involve Pan fabricating evidence, maliciously creating a debt, and using a court lawsuit as a means of disguised extortion against A Construction Company, Huang Da, and Huang, among others.
In March 2013, Pan appeared in court to respond to the lawsuit. After thorough preparation, Attorney Zhang Qingping focused on presenting the following two points of cross-examination regarding the documents submitted by Pan: 1. The evidence materials submitted by Pan were suspected of being falsified, and therefore their authenticity, legality, and relevance were not acknowledged. First, the documents submitted by the plaintiff lacked Huang's signature or seal, and both the settlement statement and calculation table were copies, making it impossible to verify their authenticity. Second, the relevant documents did not bear the name "Pan," and although the name "Pan A" appeared multiple times, "Pan" and "Pan A" were two distinct entities and should not be conflated. Furthermore, on the document dated March 4, the name "Pan A" was filled in under the "general supervisor" signature, but on the document dated March 16, the name "Yin" was filled in under the same "general supervisor" signature. Thus, the plaintiff Pan did not provide a reasonable explanation as to whether the so-called "general supervisor" was "Pan A" or "Yin." 2. Even if Pan had actually performed the construction work, Pan had already completed the project settlement on June 14, 2008. Therefore, from the date of settlement to the date Pan filed the lawsuit, more than two years had passed, exceeding the statute of limitations period.
In the end, at the request of attorney Zhang Qingping, the People's Court, in accordance with Article 2 of the Supreme People's Court's Several Provisions on Civil Evidence, which states that "where there is no evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove the factual claims of a party, the party bearing the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences," lawfully rejected all of the plaintiff Pan's claims.
