LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG v. KU LING YU JOHN T/A MESSRS JOHN KU & CO.

LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG v. KU LING YU JOHN T/A MESSRS JOHN KU & CO.

Court found on the evidence that the solicitor disclosed privileged counsel advice without the client’s informed consent, failed properly to advise on discovery and on discontinuance (common fund vs party and party costs), and that those failures caused unnecessary wasted costs; exercise of discretion warranted a wasted costs order against the defendant solicitors and an order for costs on a full indemnity basis, order nisi with liberty to apply within 14 days.

Citation
LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG v. KU LING YU JOHN T/A MESSRS JOHN KU & CO.
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: Lam Rogerio Sou Fung; Respondent/defendant (solicitor): Messrs. John Ku & Co.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 December 2009
Case Number
HCMP1916/2007
Procedural Posture
Wasted Costs Application Under RHC O.62 R.8 and Taxation of Costs / Decision (master's Ruling)
Outcome
Summons allowed as to relief sought in paragraph 1 of the summons dated 4 March 2008; wasted costs order made against the defendant solicitors; applicant to have costs on full indemnity basis; order nisi with liberty to apply within 14 days.
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs, Legal Professional Privilege, Discovery, Discontinuance, Common Fund Costs, Solicitor Negligence, Summary Jurisdiction
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Solicitor Professional Conduct Defamation Legal Professional Privilege Wasted Costs Discovery Discontinuance +3 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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Rogerio Sou Fung

Applicant/plaintiff

Messrs. John Ku & Co.

Respondent/defendant (solicitor)

Procedural Posture

Wasted Costs Application Under RHC O.62 R.8 and Taxation of Costs / Decision (master's Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether privileged counsel advice was disclosed without the client’s informed consent
  2. 2 Whether the solicitor negligently advised pursuing common fund costs on discontinuance causing additional costs
  3. 3 Whether the solicitor’s conduct caused costs to be incurred or wasted and whether a wasted costs order should be made

Ratio Decidendi

Court found on the evidence that the solicitor disclosed privileged counsel advice without the client’s informed consent, failed properly to advise on discovery and on discontinuance (common fund vs party and party costs), and that those failures caused unnecessary wasted costs; exercise of discretion warranted a wasted costs order against the defendant solicitors and an order for costs on a full indemnity basis, order nisi with liberty to apply within 14 days.

Court Disposition

Summons allowed as to relief sought in paragraph 1 of the summons dated 4 March 2008; wasted costs order made against the defendant solicitors; applicant to have costs on full indemnity basis; order nisi with liberty to apply within 14 days.

Orders

  • Defendant (Messrs. John Ku & Co.) ordered to bear and indemnify the applicant for the wasted costs identified in the judgment in terms of paragraph 1 of the summons dated 4 March 2008
  • Applicant to have his costs of this application including all reserved costs, taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel