CHU KEUNG FAI AND YU WAI HEUNG v. SUCCESS INSURANCE LTD AND OTHERS

CHU KEUNG FAI AND YU WAI HEUNG v. SUCCESS INSURANCE LTD AND OTHERS

On the evidence the firm's prolonged failures and defaults went beyond mere mistakes or errors of judgment and constituted undue delay and other misconduct within Order 62 Rule 8; accordingly the firm (William Au & Co.) must repay to the plaintiffs the costs the plaintiffs were ordered to pay to defendants and meet specified costs of the application, with limited exceptions.

Citation
CHU KEUNG FAI AND YU WAI HEUNG v. SUCCESS INSURANCE LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiffs: CHU KEUNG FAI and YU WAI HEUNG (co‑administrators of the estates of LAI PAK CHUEN deceased and CHU WAH YING deceased); 1st Defendant: SUCCESS INSURANCE LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: LAI CHAK IAN; 3rd Defendant: EXPRESS TRANSPORT AND BUILDING CONTRACTORS LIMITED; Plaintiffs' Former Solicitors / Respondent to Costs Claim: William Au & Co.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 June 1987
Case Number
HCA4517/1981
Procedural Posture
Civil Fatal‑accident Damages Action / Post‑trial Costs Application Under Order 62 Rule 8 (application to Recover Costs From Former Solicitors)
Outcome
Application granted in part: plaintiffs' former solicitors ordered to repay specified costs and to pay costs of the application except limited items
Legal Topics
Costs on Common Fund Basis, Order 62 Rule 8 RSC Cap.4, Vacation of Fixture for Trial, Solicitor Misconduct / Indemnity for Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Professional Conduct of Solicitors Evidence (hearsay) Costs on Common Fund Basis Order 62 Rule 8 RSC Cap.4 Vacation of Fixture for Trial Solicitor Misconduct / Indemnity for Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHU KEUNG FAI and YU WAI HEUNG (co‑administrators of the estates of LAI PAK CHUEN deceased and CHU WAH YING deceased)

Plaintiffs

SUCCESS INSURANCE LIMITED

1st Defendant

LAI CHAK IAN

2nd Defendant

EXPRESS TRANSPORT AND BUILDING CONTRACTORS LIMITED

3rd Defendant

William Au & Co.

Plaintiffs' Former Solicitors / Respondent to Costs Claim

Procedural Posture

Civil Fatal‑accident Damages Action / Post‑trial Costs Application Under Order 62 Rule 8 (application to Recover Costs From Former Solicitors)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether vacation of 30.6.86 fixture was due to plaintiffs' former solicitors' default
  2. 2 Whether that default amounted to professional misconduct/undue delay within Order 62 Rule 8
  3. 3 Whether costs ordered against plaintiffs could be recovered from their former solicitors

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the firm's prolonged failures and defaults went beyond mere mistakes or errors of judgment and constituted undue delay and other misconduct within Order 62 Rule 8; accordingly the firm (William Au & Co.) must repay to the plaintiffs the costs the plaintiffs were ordered to pay to defendants and meet specified costs of the application, with limited exceptions.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: plaintiffs' former solicitors ordered to repay specified costs and to pay costs of the application except limited items

Orders

  • Costs applied for in the plaintiffs' notice dated 25.10.86 payable by William Au & Co., to be taxed if not agreed
  • Costs of and occasioned by the adjournment on 24.2.87 to be paid by the plaintiffs to William Au & Co. on a party and party basis, to be taxed if not agreed