LI SHU CHUNG v. STEVENSON, WONG & CO (a firm)

LI SHU CHUNG v. STEVENSON, WONG & CO (a firm)

The retainer did not authorize issuance of multiple periodical final bills; having regard to the retainer language promising interim bills with final reckoning, the bulk delivery of many bills, settlement by appropriation from costs on account prior to receipt, overlapping time periods and subsequent additions by later bills, the Further Bills were interim in nature and therefore susceptible to variation and taxation rather than binding final accounts.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2372
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; Solicitor/respondent: Stevenson Wong & Co; Original Client (represented by Firm): Luen Tat Watch Band Manufacturer Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 October 2018
Case Number
HCMP3367/2016
Procedural Posture
Costs Taxation / Solicitor Client Retainer Dispute / Appeal Allowed; Written Reasons Delivered After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interim Bills, Final Bills, Retainer Construction, Lien for Costs, Taxation of Costs, Natural Break Principle
Source Language
EN
Solicitor and Client Costs Contract Law Civil Procedure Interim Bills Final Bills Retainer Construction Lien for Costs +2 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

Stevenson Wong & Co

Solicitor/respondent

Luen Tat Watch Band Manufacturer Limited

Original Client (represented by Firm)

Procedural Posture

Costs Taxation / Solicitor Client Retainer Dispute / Appeal Allowed; Written Reasons Delivered After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Further Bills were interim bills or final bills
  2. 2 Construction of the retainer to determine billing entitlement
  3. 3 Effect of bulk delivery of multiple bills on client’s right to tax

Ratio Decidendi

The retainer did not authorize issuance of multiple periodical final bills; having regard to the retainer language promising interim bills with final reckoning, the bulk delivery of many bills, settlement by appropriation from costs on account prior to receipt, overlapping time periods and subsequent additions by later bills, the Further Bills were interim in nature and therefore susceptible to variation and taxation rather than binding final accounts.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Further Bills declared interim and subject to variation by later bills