AMERITAX PLUS LTD v. DENICE Y. FOSTER-HARRIS

AMERITAX PLUS LTD v. DENICE Y. FOSTER-HARRIS

On the balance of probabilities the Court accepted the Plaintiff's evidence and contemporaneous emails as proving: (1) an agreed hourly rate of HK$4,000 for income tax work entitling Plaintiff to US$7,500 and US$8,500; (2) an agreement to pay US$64,000 (half of tax savings) for the estate tax strategy; the Defendant failed to prove actual undue influence and the counterclaim was dismissed; judgment entered for Plaintiff for US$7,500 (personal) and US$72,500 (as personal representative) with interest; indemnity costs refused but party-and-party costs awarded.

Citation
AMERITAX PLUS LTD v. DENICE Y. FOSTER-HARRIS
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action; 1st Defendant in Counterclaim): Ameritax Plus Limited; Defendant (also Plaintiff by Counterclaim; Personal Representative of Estate): Denice Y. Foster-Harris; 2nd Defendant in Counterclaim (managing Director of Ameritax): Dirk H. Rommeswinkel
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 July 2010
Case Number
DCCJ3001/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (debt/recovery of Professional Fees) With Counterclaim for Undue Influence and Account / Judgment Following Trial (first Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff on original action; counterclaim dismissed; costs awarded to Plaintiff on party-and-party basis
Legal Topics
Enforceability of Professional Fees, Actual Undue Influence, Representative Capacity of Personal Representative, Late Procedural Applications and Amendment of Pleadings, Costs: Indemnity Vs Party and Party
Source Language
EN
Contract Equity Civil Procedure Costs Enforceability of Professional Fees Actual Undue Influence Representative Capacity of Personal Representative Late Procedural Applications and Amendment of Pleadings +1 more

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 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ameritax Plus Limited

Plaintiff (original Action; 1st Defendant in Counterclaim)

Denice Y. Foster-Harris

Defendant (also Plaintiff by Counterclaim; Personal Representative of Estate)

Dirk H. Rommeswinkel

2nd Defendant in Counterclaim (managing Director of Ameritax)

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (debt/recovery of Professional Fees) With Counterclaim for Undue Influence and Account / Judgment Following Trial (first Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an agreement as to the hourly rate (HK$4,000) for income tax work
  2. 2 Whether there was an agreement to pay US$64,000 (half of tax savings) for estate tax strategy work
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant is personally liable and liable in representative capacity

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Court accepted the Plaintiff's evidence and contemporaneous emails as proving: (1) an agreed hourly rate of HK$4,000 for income tax work entitling Plaintiff to US$7,500 and US$8,500; (2) an agreement to pay US$64,000 (half of tax savings) for the estate tax strategy; the Defendant failed to prove actual undue influence and the counterclaim was dismissed; judgment entered for Plaintiff for US$7,500 (personal) and US$72,500 (as personal representative) with interest; indemnity costs refused but party-and-party costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff on original action; counterclaim dismissed; costs awarded to Plaintiff on party-and-party basis

Orders

  • Judgment for Plaintiff to recover US$7,500 from the Defendant in her personal capacity
  • Judgment for Plaintiff to recover US$72,500 from the Defendant in her capacity as personal representative of the Estate