Construction project faced unwarranted claims; lawyer defeated frivolous litigant in court
In March 2010, Huang's elder brother Huang Da told Huang that he could not complete a certain real estate project contracted from Construction Company A and asked Huang to finish the remaining work. Huang went to great lengths to complete the project. However, in 2013, Pan, an individual who had provided excavator services to Huang Da in 2008, sued Huang, demanding payment of 245,000 yuan in project fees owed by Huang Da, and also named Huang Da, Construction Company A, and other related parties as defendants. Frustrated, Huang had to entrust the legal team of Wang Tengfeng from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm to handle the case. After assignment, lawyer Zhang Qingping was responsible for the specific representation.
After a preliminary review of the case files, Lawyer Zhang Qingping believed that the materials indicated Pan had no direct relationship with Huang, either logically or legally. Moreover, since the debt had existed for years, why was it only now being brought up? After consulting with lead lawyer Wang Tengfeng, Zhang analyzed that this case might involve Pan fabricating evidence, maliciously creating a debt, and using a court lawsuit to extort Construction Company A, Huang Da, and Huang.
In March 2013, Pan appeared in court. After thorough preparation, Lawyer Zhang Qingping focused on challenging the documents submitted by Pan with the following two points: 1. The evidence submitted by Pan was suspected of being fraudulent, so its authenticity, legality, and relevance were not confirmed. First, the documents submitted by the plaintiff lacked Huang's signature or seal, and the settlement and calculation sheets were copies, making it impossible to verify their authenticity. Second, the relevant documents did not contain the name "Pan," though the name "Pan A" appeared multiple times, but "Pan" and "Pan A" are two different entities and should not be conflated. Furthermore, the March 4 document had "Pan A" signed under "General Contractor," while the March 16 document had "Yin" signed there. Thus, the plaintiff Pan did not provide a reasonable explanation of whether the so-called "General Contractor" was "Pan A" or "Yin." 2. Even if Pan had actually performed the work, he had already settled the project fees on June 14, 2008. Therefore, from the settlement date to the date of Pan's lawsuit, more than two years had passed, exceeding the statute of limitations.
Ultimately, the court, at Lawyer Zhang Qingping's request, applied Article 2 of the Supreme People's Court's Several Provisions on Civil Evidence, which states that "if there is no evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove the party's factual claims, the party bearing the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences," and dismissed all of plaintiff Pan's claims.
